Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:43841-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1172 of 2019 Komal Singh Thakur S/o Shri Sudhir Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o Azad Nagar Masanganj Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Sirgitty, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 2 9 .08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Amit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent. 2. By filing the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to 2 allow this petition and the proceeding initiated by the police under crime No.344/2018 for an offence under section 302, 201, 120B,34 of IPC and section 25 of Arms Act be quashed alongwith all consequential proceeding and further be pleased to direct the respondent to examine the medical check up the correct date of birth of accused Dev Sona & Vivek Shyam in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case, are that on 06.09.2018, the dead body of one Aditya Singh Chouhan, aged about 20 years, resident of Masanganj, Saraju Bagicha, P.S. Civil Line, Bilaspur, was found lying in Yadunandan Nagar, Gokhle Nala under the bridge. On receiving such information, Police Station Sirgitti registered Merg No. 70/2018 and commenced investigation. The informant Sagar Singh Kshatri reported to the police that an unknown dead body was lying in Ghokhle Nala, Sirgitti, Bilaspur. On the basis of this information, the police reached the spot and took custody of the dead body. During investigation, it was revealed that the deceased Aditya Singh was last seen in the company of the accused persons at Sirgitti. It is alleged that Aditya Singh had demanded repayment of money which he had earlier given as loan to the accused. Due to this monetary dispute, quarrel took place between the deceased and the accused persons. It is 3 further alleged that on account of previous enmity and anger over repayment of loan, the accused persons conspired together, assaulted Aditya Singh and thereafter committed his murder by throwing his dead body in Ghokhle Nala. The parents and family members of the deceased had been searching for Aditya Singh as he had not returned home for several days. Later, during investigation, it was confirmed that the death of Aditya Singh was homicidal in nature. 4. After completion of investigation, Police Station Sirgitti filed charge-sheet before the competent Court against the accused persons, who are presently in custody and trial is in progress. The petitioner is aggrieved by the charge-sheet and has raised grievance regarding his date of birth mentioned in official documents. He has prayed for a direction to conduct medical examination to ascertain the correct date of birth. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, despite having no connection with the alleged offence. It is contended that the petitioner is only a witness in the matter and was not present at the time of the incident. The petitioner is a law-abiding citizen, a permanent resident of the given address, and has no criminal antecedents whatsoever. It is further submitted that the FIR was registered on 07.09.2018 at the instance of the complainant, and during the course of investigation, the charge-sheet has already 4 been filed before the competent Court against the accused persons, who are presently in custody. The petitioner, being the brother of the deceased, cannot be treated as an accused when in fact his role is only that of a witness to the case. Learned counsel also submits that the present criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Crime No. 344/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B, 34 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act are manifestly illegal and unsustainable in law. The continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law, causing undue hardship to the petitioner. It is also pointed out that there is discrepancy with respect to the date of birth of accused persons namely Dev Sona and Vivek Shyam, as reflected in their Aadhar Cards and other documents. In the interest of justice, the learned counsel prays that thi Court may be directed the respondent authorities to conduct appropriate medical examination to ascertain the correct date of birth of the said accused persons. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. He submits that there were three accused persons in the present case, out of whom two were declared to be juveniles in conflict with law and one accused faced regular trial, which has already been concluded, resulting in his acquittal. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not assailed the order declaring the two accused persons as juveniles in conflict with law. 5 7. Having given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire material placed on record, this Court is of the firm view that no case is made out for interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’). 8. It is not in dispute that there were three accused persons in the present case, out of whom two were declared as juveniles in conflict with law, and one accused faced regular trial, which has since been concluded, culminating in his acquittal. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the order of the Juvenile Justice Board declaring the other two accused as juveniles. In these circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner for quashing of FIR and proceedings is wholly untenable. 9. In the case at hand, the investigation has already culminated into filing of charge sheet, trial against one accused has been completed, and proceedings against juveniles are separately pending before the competent forum. Thus, at this stage, interference by this Court would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution, which is impermissible in law. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no merit in the instant petition. The petition, being misconceived and devoid of substance, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Anu