Prakash Golchha S/o Late Dhanraj Golchha, Aged About 56 Years R/o Shanti Vijay Market v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:5563 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1058 of 2018 Prakash Golchha S/o Late Dhanraj Golchha, Aged About 56 Years R/o Shanti Vijay Market, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner Versus 1 - Smt. Aruna Devi Jain Wd/o Late Shantilal Jain, Aged About 34 Years 2 - Nitesh Jain S/o Shantilal Jain, Aged About 38 Years (Deleted) 3 - Smt. Poonam Jain D/o Shantilal Jain, Aged About 29 Years R/o Gudiyari, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Smt. Lalita Devi Jain Wd/o Late Siddharaj Jain, 5 - Vaibhav Jain, S/o Late Siddharaj Jain, Aged About 29 Years 6 - Saurabh Jain, S/o Late Siddharaj Jain, Aged About 26 Years R/o Flat No. 505, Amrapali Road, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Respondent No. 1 to 6 Through General Power Of Attorney Holder Mahant Pathak S/o Late Ratan Lal Pathak, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Patwa Gali, Kankalipara, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 7 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Adhiraj Surana, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer For Private Respondents : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. 2 CRMP No. 1170 of 2018 1 - Suresh Kumar Baid S/o Late Kasturchand Baid Aged About 52 Years R/o- Shantivijay Market, Sadarbazar, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Deleted) 2 - Smt. Shanti @ Muskan W/o Shri Nishant Jain Aged About 31 Years D/o Suresh Jain (Baid), R/o Quarter No. 82, Sector-7, Tahsil Faridabad, District- Faridabad, Haryana, Presently R/o Near Hollycross Girls School, Pensionbada, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kamal Narayan Pathak S/o Shri Ramnarayan Pathak Aged About 50 Years R/o- Ramkrishna Parmhansh Nagar, Kota Colony, B-1, 100 Housing Board Kota, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Mehattar Sahu S/o Agar Singh aged about years, R/o- Village Dhaneli, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Smt. Arunadevi Jain W/o Late Shri Shantilal Ji Jain Aged About 54 Years 2 - Nitesh Jain S/o Shri Shantilal Jain Aged About 38 Years (Deleted) 3 - Smt. Punam Jain D/o Shantilal Jain Aged About 29 Years R/o- Gudiyari, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Lalita Devi Jain W/o Late Shidhiraj Jain 5 - Vaibhav Jain S/o Late Shidhiraj Jain Aged About 29 Years 6 - Shourabh Jain S/o Late Shidhiraj Jain Aged About 26 Years Respondent No. 5 and 6 resident of Flat No. 505 Aamrpali Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Respondent No. 1 to 6 Power Of Attorney Mahant Phatak, Aged About 50 Years, S/o Late Ratanlal Pathak, R/o- Patva Gali, Kankalipara, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 7 - State Of Chhattisgarh. Through- Police Station Civil Line, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahil Kochar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer For Private Respondents : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30/01/2025 1. Heard Mr. Adhiraj Surana, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Adil Minhaj, learned counsel for the petitioner {in Cr.M.P. No. 1058/2018} and Mr. Rahil Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner {in Cr.M.P. No. 1170/2018}. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer for the State as well as Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for the private respondents. 2. In Cr.M.P. No. 1058/2018, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): “i) Call the entire records of Unregistered Case (Smt. Aruna Devi and others Versus Suresh Kumar and Others) pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.). ii) Set aside/quash the order dated 22.01.2018 (Annexure A/1) passed in Criminal Revision No. 114/2017 (Prakash Golchha v. Smt. Aruna Devi Jain & Others) by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, (C.G.) iii) Consequently set aside / quash the order dated 10.02.2017 4 (Annexure A/3) passed in Unregistered Caste (Smt. Aruna Devi and Others Versus Suresh Kumar and Others) pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.). iv) Quash the FIR, if any, registered subsequently pursuant to the impugned order dated 10.02.2017. v) Any other relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. In Cr.M.P. No. 1170/2018, the petitioner has sought quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No. 401/2018 dated 07.06.2018 registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Raipur for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. At the outset, Mr. Kochar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners {in Cr.M.P. No. 1170/2018 } submits that the petitioner No. 1-Suresh Kumar Baid has expired as per the instructions received by him. Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents {in Cr.M.P. No. 1170/2018} also submits that one of the respondent namely respondent No. 2-Nitesh Jain has also expired during pendency of these petitions. 5.
Decision
In view of the above submission, the Registry is directed that the name of the petitioner No. 1-Mr. Suresh Kumar Baid and the respondent No. 2- Nitesh Jain {in Cr.M.P. No. 1170/2018} and the respondent No. 2-Nitesh Jain {in Cr.M.P. No. 1058/2018} be deleted from the array of the parties. 6. Mr. Surana, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for some time to file his power on behalf of the petitioner as he is appearing merely on the instructions of Mr. Minhaj, learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Since the matters are pending since 2018, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, these matters are being heard finally. 8. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the private respondents submits that so far as Cr.M.P. No. 1058/2018 is concerned, the same has been 5 rendered infructuous as the petitioner therein had sought quashing of the order passed by the learned revisional Court in Cr.R. No. 114/2017 by which the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class dated 10.02.2017 in Unregistered Complaint Case (under Section 156(3) was upheld in which the learned Magistrate had directed the Police to register an FIR against the petitioner. Since the FIR has been registered way back on 07.06.2018 against the petitioner-Prakash Golchha, nothing survives for adjudication in this petition. 9. From perusal of the order dated 18.06.2018 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, it transpires that the proceedings before the Court below was directed to be stayed, however, the fact of the matter is that the FIR was already registered against the petitioners on 07.06.2018 before the interim order was passed. 10.In view of the above facts situation of the case, Cr.M.P. No. 1058/2018 is dismissed as having become infructuous as the FIR has already been registered against the petitioner herein. 11.So far as Cr.M.P. No. 1170/2018 is concerned, it is submitted by Mr. Kochar that a complaint case was filed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate alleging that the petitioners herein had played fraud with the private respondents and manipulated the revenue records and sold some parcel of lands to them. The said complaint case was filed through their Power of Attorney Holder, namely Mahant Pathak but he was never examined. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, vide order dated 10.02.2017 directed the Police for registration of an FIR against the petitioners. The said order was further challenged before the Court of Sessions in a revision which also stood dismissed vide order dated 22.01.2018, which in turn was challenged by the petitioners herein in Cr.M.P. No. 1058/2018. However, 6 the FIR was registered against the petitioners on 07.06.2018 which is sought to be challenged in this petition. 12.It is further submitted by Mr. Kochar that a learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 03.07.2018 had granted an interim protection to the applicants to the effect that the effect and operation of the order dated 10.02.2017 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing on the ground that the complaint was filed by the power of attorney holder and the actual complainants were not examined. 13.Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submits that because of the interim order, the investigation of the case has been stalled. 14.In view of the above, as the matter is pending consideration since 2018 and because of the interim protection granted by the learned Single Judge, no progress has been made in the investigation which has to be brought to its logical conclusion and further considering the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners herein, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondent No. 7/State to conclude the investigation as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of submission of a copy of this order to the Investigating OfÏcer concerned who shall submits police report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C before the Court concerned. Till the final report is submitted, the petitioners herein shall not be arrested, subject to their cooperation in the investigation. 15.It is ordered accordingly. 16.Consequently, this petition {Cr.M.P. No. 1170/2018} also stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.02.01 13:54:26 +0530