Korba, Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:8599-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 887 of 2021 Priyanka Jaiswal D/o Umashankar Jaiswal Aged About 28 Years Occupation Advocate , R/o Pali , Police Station Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
9. Since from perusal of the materials on record, it prima facie transpires that a case is made out against the petitioner who had signed the application for Supurdnama and the memo of appearance and tried to cheat the Court by identifying the son of the original owner of the vehicle to be the owner of the vehicle, we do not find it a fit case where this Court should exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and quash the FIR which has culminated into registration of Criminal Case No. 481/2020 after completion of the investigation and filing of the final report by the police. As the petitioner is already on bail, the interim order passed on 03.09.2021 is vacated as the proceedings of the trial Court cannot be stayed for indefinite period and the petitioner may raise all her contentions and pleas before the learned trial Court and seek discharge, if so desired. 10.Resultantly, this petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.02.21 13:29:43 +0530
Arguments
: Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 19/02/2025 1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No. 249/2020 registered at Police Station, Pali, District Korba, for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 468, 193, 120-B and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner is 2 a junior Advocate and practicing at Pali alongwith her senior, Rajesh Kumar Rathore, Advocate who is the main accused in this FIR. In the month of February, 2020 as per instruction of her senior, Rajesh Kumar Rathore, the petitioner signed an application for Supurdnama of offending vehicle and the memo of appearance. Pursuant to the memo No. 210/Nyay/Maji/Pra/Shre/Pali, dated 14.07.2020, issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pali, District Korba, the matter was investigated and during the course of investigation, it was found that Vikas Vashishtha who is the son of the original owner of the vehicle in question, alongwith Advocate Rajesh Kumar Rathore and Advocate Priyanka Jaiswal (junior of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Rathore), had committed cheating in the Court of JMFC, Pali for obtaining the vehicle Trailer bearing Registration No. CG 12 S / 6148 on Supurdnama. While furnishing the Supurdnama, when the Advocates were asked to submit the ID proof and Aadhar card of the owner of the vehicle, the same was not done and time was sought. The person who had appeared as owner of the vehicle informed that in fact he was the son of the original applicant and on asking of the Advocate Rajesh Rathore, he impersonated himself as the owner of the vehicle. The original owner of the vehicle was Ram Fal Sharma but his son had tried to impersonate himself as Ram Fal Sharma and as such, the petitioner alongwith his senior Advocate assisted in fraudulent act. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner herein had merely signed the memo of appearance on asking of Rajesh Kumar Rathore, her senior. The petitioner has not committed any offence and no ingredient for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 468, 193, 120-B and 34 of the IPC is available in this case. The police without making any preliminary investigation has directly registered the 3 offence against the petitioner which is unjust and deserves to be quashed. It is further submitted that the petitioner though has been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court in M.Cr.C.(A) No. 1702/2020, however, if the FIR is not quashed, it would severely affect the career of a young lawyer who has merely obeyed the orders of her senior. 4. On the other hand, Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned counsel for the State/ respondent submits that there is ample evidence on record to show that there is active involvement of the petitioner also in the act of defrauding the Court of law and as such, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and materials available on record. 6. From perusal of the FIR, it transpires that the co-accused namely Rajesh Kumar Rathore, who is a practising lawyer, is a habitual offender and three other FIRs have been registered against him and his license has also been suspended many a times. Though the main allegation is against Rajesh Kumar Rathore, but the application for Supurdnama and memo of appearance has been signed by the petitioner with open eyes and as such, the possibility of her involvement with full knowledge, cannot be ruled out at this stage. Since the petitioner has merely sought quashing of the FIR, but after lodging of the FIR, final report has also been filed by the police in the Court of JMFC, Pali, District Korba, this petition has virtually rendered infructuous. 7. Further, from perusal of the order dated 03.09.2021 passed by a learned Single Judge in this case, it appears that Criminal Case No. 481/2020 has been registered on the basis of FIR bearing Crime No. 249/2020 4 which is pending before the JMFC, Korba and the same has been stayed so far it relates to the petitioner only. 8. The legal position on the issue of quashing of FIR or 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. The Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences.