Piyush Gangwani S/o Late Ramchandra Gangwani, Aged About 19 Years R/o Main Road, Torwa v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal
Case Details
RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.08.22 10:26:36 +0530 1 CrMP No.1207 of 2024 & CrMP No.1247 of 2024 2025:CGHC:42036-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1207 of 2024 Piyush Gangwani S/o Late Ramchandra Gangwani, Aged About 19 Years R/o Main Road, Torwa, P.S. Torwa, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Mob. No. 8103389039 ---Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - The Director General Of Police, Police Department, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Superintendent Of Police, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Station House Officer, Police Station Tarbahar, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Abhay Singh Rathore, S/o Arjun Singh, R/o M-3, Vidhyanagar, Bilaspur, Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Narendra Kumar Motwani S/o Dularam Motwani, R/o Near Sai Mandir, Torwa, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) Respondent(s) AND CRMP No. 1247 of 2024 Piyush Gangwani (In Person) S/o Late Ramchandra Gangwani Aged About 19 Years R/o Main Road, Torwa, P.S. Torwa, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus ---Petitioner(s) 2 CrMP No.1207 of 2024 & CrMP No.1247 of 2024 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director General Of Police Police Department , New Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur, (C.G.) 4 - Station House Officer P.S.- Tarbahar, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - D.Bhaskar Rao S/o Late D.R.Swami, R/o 355/1, Wireless Colony, Tarbahar , P.S. - Tarbahar, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Narendra Kumar Motwni S/o Dularam Motwani R/o Near Sai Mandir Torwa Bilaspur Distirct - Bilaspur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Piyush Gangwani appears in person. For State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. AG For Respondent No.5 in CRMP No. 1247/2024 Singh, Advocate : Mr. Tarun Nair, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Rohitashav For Respondent No.5 in CRMP No. 1207/2024 Mr. Aditya Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Amarnath Pandey and Mr. Anil Singh, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 20/08/2025 1. Both the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions having been instituted by the same applicant, this Court deems it appropriate to consider them conjointly and adjudicate by way of this common order. 3 CrMP No.1207 of 2024 & CrMP No.1247 of 2024 2. In CRMP No. 1207/2024, the petitioner has sought quashment of the FIR registered as Crime No. 147/2023 at Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 420, 34 IPC and Sections 7, 8 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 202, together with charge-sheet and consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom, the supplementary charge-sheet filed by respondent No. 4 in Criminal Case No. 6258/2023, as well as the impugned order dated 16.02.2024 (Annexure-P/6). 3. In CRMP No. 1247/2024, the petitioner has assailed the First Information Report registered at Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Crime No. 216/2023, wherein allegations have been levelled for offences punishable under Section 509(B) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 66(C) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The relief sought further encompasses the quashment of the charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act) No. 01/2024, which is presently pending consideration before the Court of the learned Upper Sessions Judge/First Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act), Bilaspur (C.G.). Facts of the case : 4 CrMP No.1207 of 2024 & CrMP No.1247 of 2024 4. (a) On 23.05.2023, Complainant/Respondent No.5, Abhay Singh Rathore lodged FIR No. 147/2023 (In CRMP No. 1207/2024) at Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur (C.G.), alleging that during May– June 2022, several persons including Kshitij, Chandandas, Aniket Sharma, Ritik Kushwaha, Karan Chandravanshi, Shital Das, Laviraj, along with 6–7 others including bank staff member Jai Dubey, had fraudulently opened bank accounts, procured OTPs, and floated a forged company for the purpose of operating the OnLine Mahadev Satta App. On the basis of this report, offences under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 7 and 8 of the Gambling Act were registered. Though the initial charge-sheet was filed against certain other accused persons and registered as Criminal Case No. 6258/2023 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, the name of the present petitioner was later introduced only on the basis of the memorandum statement of co-accused Kshitij Bhardwaj, without any independent material. A supplementary charge-sheet was filed against him and by order dated 16.02.2024, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class enlarged the petitioner on bail. The petitioner maintains that his implication in the said case is false, illegal, and unsustainable in law. (b) On 08.08.2023 Complainant/Respondent No.5- D. Bhaskar Rao lodged FIR No. 216/2023 (in CRMP No. 1247/2024) at the very same police station, alleging that an unknown person had created a fake Instagram ID “_shrisha_rao_06,” impersonating the complainant’s nephew, and had sent threatening messages regarding circulation of 5 CrMP No.1207 of 2024 & CrMP No.1247 of 2024 objectionable photographs. On this basis, offences under Section 509(B) of the IPC and Section 66(C) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 were registered against an unknown person. In the course of investigation, the present petitioner was implicated solely on the basis of an alleged IP address, without cogent material to support such inference. He was subsequently compelled to sign papers at the police station, produced before Court, and remanded to custody without being informed of the FIR. Later, a charge-sheet was filed before the learned Upper Sessions Judge / First Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act), Bilaspur, and a supplementary charge-sheet added offences under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, besides Sections 509(B) of the IPC and 66(C) of the IT Act, 2000. Contention of the parties : 5. (A) With respect to the allegation in Crime No.147/2023, the petitioner contends that he has been falsely and maliciously implicated on the basis of fabricated documents, forged signatures, and manipulated records prepared in collusion between the police officials and private respondent No.6. The complainant himself has admitted to having no connection with the petitioner, and the alleged evidence, including panchanama, notices, and affidavits, bears forged signatures. The petitioner was a minor at the time of the alleged incident, yet no proof of age has been placed on record. Despite this, he was falsely declared an absconder under Section 174-A IPC, and he along with his 6 CrMP No.1207 of 2024 & CrMP No.1247 of 2024 family has been subjected to harassment and assault at the hands of the police and Respondent No.6. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 6 is attempting to usurp the property of the petitioner’s late father and, with such motive, has instituted false proceedings. Though the petitioner’s applications for cancellation of bail against respondent No.6 and subsequent revision under Section 397 CrPC were dismissed, the fraudulent nature of the property dispute stands established by the order of the learned Additional Collector dated 06.02.2025, which set aside the forged proceedings before the Naib Tehsildar. Initially, in the FIR, the name of the petitioner was not there, but subsequently, on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused Kshitij Bhardwaj and statement of Karan Kumar Chandravanshi, his name has been included in the crime in question though he does not even know the said person. Despite repeated representations, no action has been taken by the senior police authorities, thereby compelling the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS, 2023. (B) With respect to the allegation in Crime No. 216/2023, the petitioner submits that the entire criminal machinery has been misused to harass him through false implication and collusive proceedings. The allegation of circulating obscene material through a fake Instagram ID is wholly baseless. The Cyber Cell report under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act unequivocally establishes that no such account was ever created or operated from the petitioner’s seized device, on which basis the trial Court itself directed return of the said mobile phone to him. The 7 CrMP No.1207 of 2024 & CrMP No.1247 of 2024 alleged screenshots are fabricated, lack probative value, and were admittedly generated from devices unrelated to the petitioner. Despite this, the Investigating Officer, acting with mala fide, prepared a false panchnama and coerced the petitioner’s brother into signing as a witness. Such actions clearly demonstrate deliberate misuse of process of law. Simultaneously, respondent No. 6, in active collusion with land grabbers and local authorities, has engaged in a systematic conspiracy to dispossess the petitioner and the family members from their ancestral land at Khasra No. 445, Bilaspur. Multiple fraudulent devices including forged demarcation applications, fabricated panchanamas, collusive civil suits, and ex parte decrees based on forged signatures have been employed despite successive civil courts, including this Court, having upheld the possession of the family of the petitioner. Criminal acts e.g. trespass, demolition, abduction of the petitioner (then a minor), sexual harassment, and threats of false implication have been repeatedly perpetrated. The cumulative facts establish that the petitioner has been made a victim of harassment on two fronts i.e. false criminal prosecution and unlawful attempts to usurp his land. The mala fide investigation, coupled with inaction of police authorities on repeated complaints, renders the proceedings manifestly illegal, unsustainable, and contrary to the principles of justice. 6. Per Contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner’s allegations of false implication and collusion are baseless. The crimes were registered on prima facie evidence following due 8 CrMP No.1207 of 2024 & CrMP No.1247 of 2024 process. Civil disputes cannot shield him from criminal liability. The petitions are meritless and they may be dismissed. 7. (i) Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 in CRMP No. 1207/2024, would oppose the submission of the petitioner. (ii) Learned counsel for Respondent No.5 in CRMP No. 1247/2024 would submit that he has nothing to say in the matter. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6, while opposing the submission of the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has falsely impleaded Respondent No.6 to harass and malign him. He is neither a complainant, victim, nor witness in FIRs 147/2023 or 216/2023 and has no involvement in the investigation. Allegations of criminal antecedents are baseless; two FIRs against him are pending trial, and a third was quashed on compromise. The petitioner himself is an accused in other cases and he has not approached this Court with clean hands. 9. We have heard the rival submissions of the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel for the State, respondent No. 5 and Respondent No. 6, along with their respective pleadings. Analysis: 10. In CRMP No. 1207/2024 (FIR No.147/2023), the petitioner was implicated and has been arrayed as an accused in the proceeding solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of Kshitij Bhardwaj and the statement of Karan Kumar Chandravanshi without any independent or corroborative evidence. Similarly, in CRMP No. 1247/2024 (FIR No. 216/2023), the petitioner’s alleged involvement was predicated on an IP 9 CrMP No.1207 of 2024 & CrMP No.1247 of 2024 address, without conclusive proof linking him to the purported fake Instagram account. The implication of the petitioner herein is only on the basis of Panchnama. These deficiencies raise substantial doubts regarding the authenticity and legitimacy of the FIRs. 11. The petitioner contends that fabricated documents, forged signatures, and manipulated records were prepared in collusion between certain police officials and private respondents. It is further alleged that Respondent No. 6, along with some land grabbers, attempted to unlawfully usurp the petitioner’s ancestral property, using criminal proceedings as a pretext for such misconduct. 12. A bare perusal of the pleadings reveal that, despite being a minor at the relevant time, the petitioner was mischievously declared as an absconder under Section 174-A of the IPC. He was coerced into signing documents at the police station, and both he and his family allegedly faced harassment from police officials as well as local land grabbers. These procedural lapses indicate a strong possibility of mala fide conduct in the investigation for implicating him in two FIRs and the charge-sheets which are subject matters of the aforesaid two petitions. 13. Moreover, the Cyber Cell report, produced under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, reportedly establishes that the petitioner’s device was not used to operate the alleged fake Instagram account. Alleged screenshots and other purported evidence appear to have been fabricated or derived 10 CrMP No.1207 of 2024 & CrMP No.1247 of 2024 from unrelated devices, thereby undermining the reliability, credibility, and integrity of the investigation. 14. The device seized from the petitioner were sent for examination to the Cyber Cell. On due examination of the same, by letter dated 13-9-2023 the Incharge Cyber Cell, Bilaspur, informed the Station House Officer, PS Tarbahar, Bilaspur to the effect that in the Article ‘A’ i.e. Vivo mobile (Vivo 1919) bearing IMEI No.865796046878994 & 865796046878986 having BSNL SIM (ICCID No.8991581020371759231), which is operating condition, the Instagram ID “_shrisha_rao_06 was not found. Thus, it is crystal clear that the petitioner herein has not posted any obscene photo/video through the said device. He has implicated in the crime in question only on the basis of panchnama prepared by the police. 15. Considering that the petitioner was a minor at the time of the alleged incidents, the coercion he endured and his wrongful declaration as an absconder raise significant legal and ethical concerns. The harassment allegedly suffered by him and his family further highlights his vulnerability and reinforces the legitimacy of his claim for judicial relief. 16. The petitioner underscores a discernible pattern of harassment, blending false criminal prosecution with unlawful attempts to seize property. The ongoing investigation appears to be influenced by civil disputes and demonstrates mala fide intentions, thereby justifying the exercise of the 11 CrMP No.1207 of 2024 & CrMP No.1247 of 2024 Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC (528 BNSS) to prevent abuse of process and avert a miscarriage of justice. Conclusion: 17. Upon meticulous consideration of the submissions advanced by the petitioner, learned counsel for the State, respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 6, together with the pleadings and materials on record, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has been prima facie subjected to malicious prosecution, vexatious proceedings, and procedural improprieties. The FIRs in question rest upon disputed and uncorroborated evidence, and allowing the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would constitute a manifest abuse of the process of law. 18. In consequence thereof, FIR No. 147/2023 (CRMP No. 1207/2024) and FIR No. 216/2023 (CRMP No. 1247/2024), together with all consequential charge-sheets and proceedings emanating therefrom, including Criminal Case No. 6258/2023 and Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act) No. 01/2024, are hereby quashed against the petitioner. Whereas, the proceeding against the co-accused shall go on in accordance with law. 19. Ergo, both the petitions are allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul