Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Saraipali, D
Case Details
1 ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2025:CGHC:25314-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1005 of 2023 1 - Vakil Kumar Devta S/o Shesh Dev Devta Aged About 51 Years R/o Ward No.2, Virendra Nagar, Saraipali, Tahsil And Police Station Saraipali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Banita Das @ Damyanti Devta W/o Vakil Kumar Devta Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No.2, Virendra Nagar, Saraipali, Tahsil And Police Station Saraipali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Saraipali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Damyanti Devta W/o Vakil Devta, aged about 45 years R/o Ravigram Nagar Telibandha, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Respondent No.1 / State : Mr. Shakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 18 .0 6 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State / respondent No.1 and Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, learned 2 counsel, appearing for respondent No.2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant 482 petition filed by the petitioners and the FIR dated 13.03.2023 (Annex.P/1) bearing Crime No. 90/2023 registered at Police Station Saraipali, Mahasamund and all subsequent proceedings may kindly be quashed, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that instant FIR is an abuse of the process of law and the same has been lodged only to harass the accused. Earlier also the same complainant / respondent No.2 lodged an FIR against the petitioners on 27.04.2014 which was registered as Crime No. 186/2014 inter alia on the allegations that the petitioners are misusing the name of the complainant "Damyanti Devta" and the complainant has produced the Ration Card, the document pertaining to the admission of Aman Devta, Birth Certificate of Aman Devta, to fortify the allegations and the challan was filed, the same Birth Certificate bearing No. 248 was seized by the prosecution to show the cheating and ultimately the order of acquittal was passed on 24.08.2021 in Criminal Case No. 163/2015. Now the second FIR has been lodged by the same complainant on the same allegations that, the petitioners are misusing her name and got executed the birth certificate of their Son Aman Devta showing the 3 name of the complainant "Damyanti Devta" as his mother. The allegations in the second FIR are one and the same and if the second FIR would be permitted to be investigated, it would amounts to abuse of process of law. He further submitted that the name of the petitioner No.2 is Banita @ Damyanti Devta and therefore, in every government document, her name has been shown as Damyanti Devta. "Annex. P/9" is the copy of the Aadhar Card and Voter ID of Damyanti Devta/petitioner No.2. Even the photograph of the petitioner No.2 has been affixed. He also submitted that the second FIR on the same set of allegations has been lodged whereas the petitioners have already been acquitted in the First FIR. If the second FIR and criminal proceedings would be allowed to continue, it would be violative of Article 20 (2) of Constitution of India. He contended that it is a pith and substance of the allegations which would decide whether the second FIR has been lodged on the same set of allegations. The Birth certificate of child which is the subject matter of the present FIR was also produced in the earlier criminal case and seized by the police in Crime No. 186/2014, to show that the petitioners have committed an offence of cheating and again the same document/birth certificate is the foundation of the second FIR. Therefore, the FIR dated 13.03.2023 and all subsequent proceedings are deserves to be quashed. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matters of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others1, Manoj Kumar Sharma and others v. State of 1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 Chhattisgarh and others2 and T.P. Gopal Krishnan v. State of 4 Kerala3. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the aforesaid submission and stated that the investigation in the matter is under progress, wherein, the investigating agency is collecting evidences and records to prove the allegations, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioners are not involved in the crime in question and as such, at this stage, the instant petition is premature and liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the FIR contains the allegation of fraud and cheating with the complainant, which is a serious crime and such allegation requires detailed investigation which is under process. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 / complainant also opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the previous complaint made against the petitioner is no relevance to the present case. He further contended that pursuant to the written complaint made against the petitioners, the FIR has been registered and the investigation is going on, therefore, at this stage, the petition is premature and liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 7. The Supreme Court in the mater of Bhajan Lal (supra) laid down 2 (2016) 9 SCC 1 3 2022 SCC Online SC 1768 5 the principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first information report and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the report, their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised, which are as under: - “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected 6 in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 8. The principle of law laid down in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra) has been followed recently by the Supreme Court in the matters of 7 Google India Private Limited v. Visaka Industries4, Ahmad Ali Quraishi and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 5 and Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra and others6. The Supreme Court in Google India Private Limited (supra), explained the scope of dictum of Bhajan Lal’s case (supra) that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and “that too in the rarest of rare cases” as indicated in paragraph 103 therein of the report. 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Sharma (supra) held as under:- “35. While discussing the scope and ambit of Section 482 of the Code, a similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Kal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 wherein it was held as under:- “29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far- reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. 4 5 6 (2020) 4 SCC 162 (2020) 13 SCC 435 (2019) 18 SCC 191 8 To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC: 30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule 9 the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? 30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/ complainant? 30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of T.P. Gopal Krishnan (supra) has considered the identical issue and Article 20(2) of Constitution of India. The relevant portion of the judgment are quoted below for the facility of reference; 17. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there is a bar to the prosecution in the two cases namely since the appellant herein has already been prosecuted as well as punished for the same offences, in same set of facts. That prosecuting the appellant herein in the present two cases would amount to double jeopardy. In India, protection against double jeopardy is a fundamental right enshrined under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of 10 India. Section 300 of the CrPC is also based on the said principle. 18. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to understand the concept of double jeopardy. As per the Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, 'double jeopardy' is defined as "being prosecuted or sentenced twice, for substantially the same offence". 19. The word jeopardy' is used to designate the danger of conviction and punishment which an accused in a criminal action incurs. 'Jeopardy' implies an exposure to a lawful conviction for an offence for which a person has already been acquitted or convicted. The terms double jeopardy', 'former jeopardy', jeopardy for life or limb', 'jeopardy for the same offence', 'twice put in jeopardy of punishment and other similar expressions used in various Constitutions and statutes are to be construed substantially, to the same effect. In other words, double jeopardy is used to denote the protection to an accused, that he has had a fair trial for the same offence, wherein fair trial means trial according to law and established legal procedure. 20. Part III of the Constitution of India deals with Fundamental Rights. Articles 20 to 22 deal with personal liberty of citizens and others. Article 20(2) expressly provides that no person shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence, more than once. The protection against double jeopardy is also supplemented by statutory provisions contained in Section 300 of the CrPC, Section 40 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 71 of the IPC and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India reads as under: "20. Protection in respect of conviction for offences.- (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. (3) xxx xxx xxx” 11. The Supreme Court in the matter of Neeharika Infrastructure 11 Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others7 has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. The Supreme Court has emphasised that though the court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 12. From perusal of the prayers and pleadings made in the petition and materials available on record, it is apparent that earlier the same complainant / respondent No.2 had lodged an FIR against the petitioners on 27.04.2014 which was registered as Crime No. 186/2014 inter alia on the allegations that the petitioners are misusing her name and has produced the Ration Card, the document pertaining to the admission of Aman Devta, Birth Certificate of Aman Devta, to fortify the allegations and the challan was filed, the same Birth Certificate bearing No. 248 was seized by the prosecution to show the cheating and ultimately the order of acquittal was passed on 24.08.2021 in Criminal Case No. 7 2021 SCC Online SC 315 12 163/2015. Now, the second FIR has been lodged by the same complainant on the same allegations that, the petitioners are misusing her name and got executed the birth certificate of their son ‘Aman Devta’ showing the name of the complainant "Damyanti Devta" as his mother. It further transpires that the name of the petitioner No.2 is Banita @ Damyanti Devta and therefore, in every government document, her name has been shown as Damyanti Devta. "Annex. P/9" is the copy of the Aadhar Card and Voter ID of Damyanti Devta/petitioner No.2. Even the photograph of the petitioner No.2 has been affixed. The allegations in the second FIR are one and the same and if the second FIR would be permitted to be investigated, it would amounts to abuse of process of law. 13. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of aforequoted judicial precedents, we are of the view that the petitioners have made out strong case for quashing of FIR. Accordingly, FIR bearing Crime No. 90/2023 registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 420 and 34 of IPC at Police Station Saraipali, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) is hereby quashed. 14. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra