Ramayan Prasad Sharma S/o Ram Sajivan Sharma Aged About 48 Years Current R/o Village v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station Incharge, P.S. Kelhari, Distt.M.C.B
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:29298-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2019 of 2025 Ramayan Prasad Sharma S/o Ram Sajivan Sharma Aged About 48 Years Current R/o Village Shivpur, Ps Kelhari, District M.C.B. (Now New District Old District Is Koriya) Chhattisgarh (Current Address Is Mentioned) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station Incharge, P.S. Kelhari, Distt.M.C.B.(Now New Disrict Old District Is Koriya ) Chhattisgarh 2 - Jai Singh Paw S/o Sitaram Paw Aged About 41 Years Current Address-Village Bhatadan Ps Bijuri, District Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh, R/o Village Dugla, Ps Kelhari, Distt. M.C.B. (Now New District Old District Is Koriya) Chhattisgarh (Cause title taken from CIS) ... Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
this Court in CRMP No. 1248/2021 for the reasons best known to him. Similarly on 07/03/2025 the same was the position. 10. It is also clear from the record that earlier the petitioner had approached before this Court by filing a petition bearing CRMP No. 1248/2021 whereby he has challenged the entire charge sheet subsequently the petitioner was granted interim relief by this Court vide order dated 12-4-2022 thereafter the matter was heard and the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18/10/2024 with a liberty to the petitioner to raise all his grounds at the time of framing of charge, this information has not been disclosed by the petitioner before this Court wherein the petitioner was seeking same prayer as he has 6 sought in the present matter. The petitioner has challenged the same impugned order dated 16/08/2021 passed in Criminal Case No. 357/2021 pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh, District Koriya which he has challenged in the present case that is for the same cause of action. 11. It is evident from the record that the petitioner has come up before this Court on the ground that the compromise arrived at between the parties and the counsel for the private respondent No.2 is also present and admitted that above fact regarding the compromise. However, considering the fact that the offence which has been registered against the petitioner under Section 392 of the IPC is non-compoundable offence and further earlier petition i.e. CRMP No. 1248/2021 which was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 18/10/2024 which was filed by the petitioner has not been disclosed in the present petition and the order which was passed finally in that petition has also not been annexed herewith. 12. In view of the above, it is crystal clear that the petitioner is concealing the facts about the previous petition which has been filed by the petitioner and there is suppression of material facts which amounts to abuse of process of law. It is well settled principle of law that a party which has suppressed the material facts is not entitled to be heard on merits of the case. 13. Accordingly, the present CRMP deserves to be and is hereby 7 dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts subject to depositing a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as cost by the petitioner in the Registry of this Court within a period of one month from today and the said amount shall be transmitted to the Government Multi-Disabled Home, Village Pendri, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.), failing which the Registrar General shall recover the amount from the petitioner in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice $ Bhilwar/Jyoti
Arguments
For Petitioner(s) For Respondent/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No. 2/ Complainant : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 2 Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 01/07/2025 1. Heard Ms. Madhunisha Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 as well as Ms. Sweksha Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/ Complainant. 2. By this petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): “A. That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside the final report no. 33/2021 dated 30.06.2021 in FIR no. 33/2021 dated 29.04.2021 for offence punishable u/s 341,166, 392 of IPC (Annexure P/1) on the basis of compromise between the parties. B. That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order taking Cognizance dated 16.08.2021 by the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate first Class Manedragarh whereby, the final report bearing final report no. 33/2021 dated 30.06.2021 has been taken cognizance. (Annexure P/2), on the basis of compromise between the parties. C. That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order of framing charge dated 3 22.12.2021 in Criminal case no. 357/2021, whereby, Court of Judicial Magistrate first Class Manedragarh has refused to consider the objections raised by the petitioner that no charge is made out and have charged the petitioners with offence punishable u/s 341,392, and 166 of IPC.(Annexure P/3), on the basis of compromise between the parties. D. That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside all the consequential proceedings in Criminal case no. 357/2021 pending before Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manendragarh on the basis of compromise between the parties. E. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the Petitioner, in the interest of justice. An affidavit in support of is filed herewith.” 3. The petitioner has preferred the present CRMP seeking quashment of the charge sheet, cognizance order, charge framing order, and all consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No. 357/2021 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Manendragarh. The proceedings arise from FIR No. 33/2021 dated 29.04.2021 registered at Police Station Kelhari, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 166, and 392 of the IPC, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 4. The facts, in brief, is that the Private Respondent Jai Singh and 4 other villagers was presented in Kelhari police station to the effect that on 20.04.2021 at around 6:00 pm, poor tribals collecting Mahua in the forest were looted by Shivpur Deputy Ranger Ramayan Prasad Sharma by threatening and stopping their way from the forest ahead of Kailashpur and from the forest of Chaplipaani and took mahua and money without following due legal process. Half a pound of Mahua kept in the shop of supervisor Cherwa of Kailashpur village. Mahua was also looted from Biharpur residents from the forest ahead of Kailashpur, which was said to be seized, whereas no paperwork and written action of seizure was taken by Forest Officer Ramayan Sharma. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a compromise was also entered into between the petitioner and the private respondent Jai Singh and other villagers to the effect that mutual settlement has been reached between the parties and cordial relation have been established and they did not want any criminal proceeding against the petitioner, and they executed the notarized affidavit with that effect affirming that they do not want any criminal proceeding. 6. On a pointed query being made by this Court from the counsel for the petitioner that whether any application for discharge was moved by the petitioner after dismissal of the CRMP No. 5 1248/2021, it has been submitted that no such application was moved. On the other hand, charges have been framed against the petitioner on 22/12/2021. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent, per contra, supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that matter has been amicably settled between the parties. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 9. Perusal of the order sheet goes to show that on 26/12/2024 when the matter was listed before the trial Court, the petitioner failed to file a copy of the order dated 18/10/2024 passed by