Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:19524-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1460 of 2025 Shatrughan Lal Sahu S/o Late Banshilal Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village- Basin, Police Station - Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband (C.G.) 2. Nevendra Kumar Sinha S/o Shri Ganga Prasad Sinha R/o Village- Kendri, Tahsil- Abhanpur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondent/State : : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 30.04.2025 BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.04.30 18:22:00 +0530 1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 1/State. 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “I. Allow this petition under Section 528 of BNSS filed by the petitioner. II. Quash the impugned FIR dated 03.03.2025 bearing Crime No. 64 of 2025 registered at Police Station, Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offence under Section 318, 319, 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 against the petitioner. III. Grant any other relief, which may be deemed fit in given facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is recorded owner of lands bearing Khasra Nos. 2835, 2850 & 50 admeasuring areas 0.27 hectare, 0.22 hectare & 0.51 hectare respectively situated at Village Basin, Tahsil-Rajim, District-Gariyaband (C.G.). He also submits that the brother of the petitioner, namely, Hariram Sahu with the help of co-accused Maniram Miri, Vasudev Sahu and Dhruw Kumar Nishad got prepared forged Adhar Card of petitioner by afÏxing photo of Hariram Sahu in the Adhar Card of petitioner and on the basis of said forged document, the said accused persons have executed an agreement to sale in favour of respondent No. 2/complainant and thereafter, the accused persons executed registered sale deed in respect of aforesaid lands of petitioner in favour of respondent No. 2 on 23.08.2024 in total sale consideration amount of Rs. 25,87,000/-. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the market value of aforesaid land of petitioner is Rs. 1,25,00,000/-, but 3 the said lands have been sold by the accused persons to the respondent No. 2 in Rs. 25,87,000/- only. He would submit that the co-accused Hariram has deposited two cheques in the bank account of petitioner by informing the petitioner that the said cheque is loan amount and thereafter, the said Hariram has asked the petitioner for refund of the cheque amount deposited in his bank account and the petitioner has bonafidely returned the said cheque amount to the said co-accused Hariram. Though the aforesaid lands were sold by the accused persons in favour of respondent No. 2, but the petitioner is in actual physical possession of the said lands. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that when the petitioner applied before the revenue authorities for providing B-1, Naksha Khasra for preparation of new Rin-Pustika for selling paddy, then he came to know that the lands of the petitioner have been mutated/recorded in the name of respondent No. 2 on the basis of registered sale deed executed in favour of respondent No. 2. He further stated that after knowledge of above forged and fabricated registered sale deed dated 23.08.2024, petitioner sent legal notice to the respondent No. 2 and witnesses of registered sale deed namely, Tomesh Sinha son of Deendayal Sinha & Gangaprasad Sinha son of Sohan Lal Sinha on 05.01.2025. 6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has never executed any registered sale deed in favour of respondent No. 2 and he has never received any consideration amount from the respondent No. 2, therefore, the petitioner has made complaint before the Police Station, Fingeshwar, but no action was taken by the Police authorities, thus, on 01.03.2025, the petitioner has made written 4 complaint dated 01.03.2025 before the Superintendent of Police, Gariyaband against the registration of forged and fabricated sale deed in respect of lands of petitioner in favour of respondent No. 2. In the meantime, the respondent No. 2 has made complaint before the Police authority and on the basis of complaint lodged by the respondent No. 2, the offences punishable under Sections 318, 319, 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’) were registered against the accused Hariram Sahu, Vasudev Sahu, Maniram Miri and Dhruw Kumar Nishad in Crime No. 64 of 2025. He also contended that during course of investigation, the concerned Police has also arrested the present petitioner on 06.03.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 483 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband and vide order dated 18.03.2025 in Bail Petition No. 61 of 2025, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband has granted regular bail to the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has neither prepared any forged or fabricated documents, nor committed any cheating and fraud with the respondent No. 2 and the basic ingredients of alleged offences are not made out against the petitioner. Hence, the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 64 of 2025 registered at Police Station Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offences under Sections 318, 319, 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 3(5) of the BNS against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that once the FIR has been registered, it has to be investigated and taken to its logical end. Thus, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 5 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned FIR. 10. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge- sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if 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, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) or under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 11. In the well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Guidelines are as follows: “(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 to 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 ofÏcers under Section 156(1) of 6 the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 156(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected 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 ofÏcer 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 every reach a just conclusion that there is sufÏcient 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 efÏcacious 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.” 12. In case of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill, reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. 7 Biological E Ltd. & Ors, reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Hon’ble Apex Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 13. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon’ble Apex Court 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 of the Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Hon’ble Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 528 of the BNSS or under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 14. Keeping in view the aforesaid law and considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered 8 view that the submissions raised by learned counsel for petitioner relate to the questions of fact and thus, cannot be examined by this Court in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS or under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The appreciation of evidence or the reliability of the allegations cannot be examined at this stage. 15. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 540, it has been held that probabilities of the prosecution version cannot be analysed at this stage. Likewise, the allegations of mala fides of the informant are of secondary importance. The relevant passage reads thus: (SCCp. 550, para 11) “11......It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with.” 16. From the above stated case laws it is apparent that the above stated contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be examined by this Court. The adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record, it cannot be held that the impugned criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with malafide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due 9 to private and personal grudge. FIR or criminal proceedings can be quashed only in accordance with parameters laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. 17. Further, from the perusal of impugned FIR, it transpires that the respondent No. 2/complainant, submitting a complaint application before the Superintendent of Police, Gariyaband, during the investigation, the complainant and witnesses made statements. According to their statements, Hariram Sahu, Maniram Miri, Vasudev Sahu, and Dhruv Kumar Nishad allegedly sold the petitioner/accused's land bearing Khasra Nos. 2835, 2850, and 50, measuring 0.27, 0.22, and 0.51 hectares, respectively, by taking an advance amount of Rs. 50,000/-. On 23.08.2024, they appeared at the Registration OfÏce, Rajim, and got the land registered. Hariram Sahu allegedly afÏxed his photo on the applicant/accused's Aadhaar card, while Maniram Miri, Vasudev Sahu, and Dhruv Kumar Nishad prepared fake Aadhaar cards. They allegedly received Rs. 25,87,000/- through cheque No. 336403 and Rs. 33,38,000/- in cash as the sale consideration. When the complainant questioned the applicant/accused about the land sale on 05.01.2025, the petitioner/accused denied selling the land. Based on the complaint investigation, a case was registered against the accused persons, Hariram Sahu, Vasudev Sahu, Maniram Miri, and Dhruv Kumar Nishad, at Police Station Fingsher, under Crime No. 64/2025, for offences punishable under Sections 318, 319, 336(3), 338, 340(2), and 3(5) of the BNS. Upon finding evidence, the petitioner/accused was arrested and sent to judicial custody. During the investigation, an offence under Section 61(2) of the BNS was added to the case. 10 18. In view of the above, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, therefore, the present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction Section 528 of the BNSS or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to quash the impugned FIR. Hence, no ground exists for quashing of the FIR. 19. Accordingly, the present CRMP is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan