Firoz Ahmad S/o Late Ahmad Ali Aged About 46 Years R/o Nandai Chowk, Kothar v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station
Case Details
1 BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.07.02 11:08:45 +0530 2025:CGHC:29294-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2012 of 2025 Firoz Ahmad S/o Late Ahmad Ali Aged About 46 Years R/o Nandai Chowk, Kothar Para, Ward No.-48, Beside Kali Mandir, Police Station - Basantpur, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.), (Accused) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station - Basantpur, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.), (Prosecution) 2 - Smt. Sonu @ Priyanka Jain Wd/o Dharmendra Jain Aged About 38 Years R/o Riddhi Siddhi Colony, Phase-1, Police Station - Basantpur, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.), (In The F.I.R. The Complainant Name Shown As Purushottam Banjare Whereas The Main Complaint Has Been Made By Deceased Wife I.E. Smt. Sonu @ Priyanka Jain) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prima facie no offence under Sections 306 and 420 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner. No abatement or forgery has been committed by the petitioner, he is just taking loan from the concerned bank, whereas the deceased who is the friend of the petitioner stood as a guarantor and mortgage his property also, 5 but during the COVID period the petitioner was not able to re-paid the loan amount and the bank authority harassed the petitioner as well as deceased for re-payment of loan, due to instigation of the bank authority the deceased committed suicide by hanging himself in his shop. He further submits that the petitioner though taken the loan from the Bank, in the period of Covid-19 Pandemic for survival of his business, but he could not arrange the money for return the said amount and same is not forgery or even abatement of suicide. He also submits that in the whole allegation there is no abatement on the part of the petitioner and even definition of Section 107 of the IPC is also not attracted, which provids the definition of abatement. From the allegation itself, no crime is made out against the present petitioner. Taking loan is not a crime and if he is defaulter, the bank has power to recover the said amount. He contended that before suicide of the deceased, there is no complaint or report made by the deceased to any of the authority or wife of the deceased against the petitioner and just after death the wife of deceased levelled the allegation of abatement. He further contended that Dharmendra Jain has committed suicide on 09.09.2021, whereas the FIR has been registered on 01.12.2021 and there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed and the entire proceedings deserve to be quashed. 8. Mr.Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State opposing the prayer of the petitioner 6 submits that the FIR prima facie discloses the cognizable offence and the deceased has left the suicidal note. As such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned FIR produced by the learned State counsel. 10. The legal position on the issue of quashing of 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 and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 11. In the well celebrated judgment reported in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 605 the Apex Court held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Guidelines are as follows: “(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety to do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case 7 against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 156(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can every reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to 8 spite him due to private and personal grudge." 12. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 13. From perusal of the FIR, charge-sheet and other documents, it transpires that in the present case, the petitioner had obtained loan of Rs.3 lakhs from deceased Dharmendra Jain and also had obtained loan of Rs.20,50,000/- from the Bank by fraudulently keeping deceased’s wife as a guarantor. The petitioner was not returning the money which he had obtained from the deceased as well as he was pressurizing the deceased to pay the bank loan by threatening him to kill. Due to such pressure created by the petitioner, deceased Dharmendra Jain committed suicide by 9 hanging on 9.9.2021. During the investigation, the police found that the petitioner is abated the deceased to commit suicide and offence under Section 306 of the IPC has been registered and thereafter, offence under Section 420 of the IPC has been added on the ground that the petitioner has committed fraud while mortgaging the property of the deceased for the purpose of securing the loan, which was not re-paid by the petitioner. 14. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the contents of the FIR and other other documents, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. The present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned FIR. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. 15. In view of aforesaid, the petition lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. The CRMP is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Bablu
Arguments
: Mr.Punit Ruparel, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate No.1/State General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 1.7.2025 2 1. 2. Heard Mr.Punit Ruparel, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1/State. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with following prayer: “The petitioner therefore most humbly and respectfully prays that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow instant petition and quash the FIR in Crime No.534/2021 registered at Police Station Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon, charge-sheet dated 30.01.2025 in offence punishable under Section 306 & 420 of IPC, order of taking cognizance dated 05.05.2025 in Sessions Trial No. 38/2025 and subsequent Sessions Trial No. 38/2025, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is taken the loan of Rs.20,50,000/- from the Bank, in which Priyanka Jain (wife of deceased) is stand as guarantor, further the petitioner is taken a sum of Rs.3 lakhs from deceased Dharmendra Jain, the money which is taken from the Bank as well as from the deceased was not returned by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner is threatened the deceased to kill, due to which deceased Dharmendra Jain committed suicide by hanging himself on 09.09.2021. The merg intimation has been registered and after due investigation, the police found that the petitioner is abated the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the aforesaid offence has been registered against 3 the present petitioner. The petitioner filed anticipatory bail before the Court below which was dismissed, thereafter, approached this Court by way of M.Cr.C.(A) No. 837/2022 and the same was rejected on 14.07.2022. Thereafter he approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by way of SLP (Crl.) No. 7252/2022, which was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 09.02.2023. 4. Earlier the police has registered offence under Section 306 of the IPC for abatement, whereas the deceased was committed suicide by hanging himself in the old shop. After rejecting anticipatory bail application by this Court and after granting anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the police intentionally added the offence of Section 420 of the IPC stating that the petitioner has committed fraud while mortgage the property of the deceased for the purpose of securing loan which was not re-paid by the petitioner, whereas the petitioner is running a shop of e-rickshaw and when he is not able to re-paid the loan amount during the COVID period, he become default. The concerned bank is harassing the petitioner as well as the guarantor, hence the deceased Dharmendra Jain has committed suicide, whereas the deceased is running grossary shop. On the basis of said, the respondent No. 2 insist to register FIR against the petitioner and subsequently during course of investigation she leveled allegation against all the relevant persons including the finance company who allow the loan amount i.e. Cooperation Bank, Rajnandgaon for securing loan. Respondent No. 2 is mortgaged the property 4 situated at village Kaurinbhatha, P.H. No. 36/41, rakba 401/51, 401/2, 403/2, 3, 4 & 5, 404 and khasra No. 412/2, 6, 57, 80, rakba 0.011 hectare. After registering FIR the police during the course of investigation added Section 420 of the IPC and after due investigation charge-sheet has been filed. 5. During the course of investigation, respondent no. 2 is also alleged that one Kamlesh Verma who applied for anticipatory bail before this Court by way of M.Cr.C.(A) No. 212/2025, same was allowed by this Court on 20.02.2025. After filing of charge-sheet the case is sent for committal whereas Sessions Trial No. 38/2025 is registered and the trial court is taking cognizance against the petitioner on 05.05.2025 and the case is fixed on 10.06.2026 for argument before charge. 6. That, the petitioner being aggrieved with the impugned FIR, charge-sheet, order of taking cognizance dated 05.05.2025 and subsequent Sessions Trial No. 38/2025 pending before the Sessions Court, Rajnandgaon, District Rajandgaon filed this petition. 7.