State of Chhattisgarh v. Santosh Prasad Choudhary
Case Details
1 / 7 2025:CGHC:1950 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1961 of 2023 Santosh Prasad Choudhary S/o Bhim Prasad Choudhary Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Dokda, Chowki Dokda, P.S. Kansabel, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chowki Dokda, Police Station Kansabel, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rajendra Martin Lakda S/o Late Rafel Lakda Aged About 64 Years R/o Darupisa, Chowki Dokda, Kansabel, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. (Cause title taken from Case Information System) ---- Respondents For Petitioner For Respondent/State For Respondent No.2 : : :
Legal Reasoning
prima facie shows that the huge amount is illegally withdrawn from the bank account of the complainant. The allegation and the defence taken by the petitioner are contained with disputed question of facts, which are to be adjudicated of the leading evidence of the parties and trial of the case. Therefore, there is no ground in the petition to quash the charge sheet and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed in the petition. 6. From the perusal of the documents annexed with the petition, it reflects that there is allegation of illegally withdrawal of the amount from the bank account of the respondent No. 2 without his consent. In between the period of 2018 to 2021, total about Rs. 23 lakhs has been illegally withdrawn from his bank account and after due consideration of the complaint, the FIR has been registered and after collecting the evidence against the petitioner, the charge sheet has been filed before 5 / 7 the learned trial Court, which is pending for consideration in Criminal Case No. 289 of 2023 at learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagicha. 7. In M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra an others, AIR OnLine 2021 SC 192, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 23 held as under: “23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/ or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/ FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; 6 / 7 iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty); v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;” 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as also, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Niharika (supra), 7 / 7 we do not find any sufficient ground to interfere in the petition and to quash the charge sheet as well as criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagicha in Criminal Case No. 289 of 2023. The disputes are factual in nature, which requires evidence, which is to be led during the trial of the case. 9. In view of the above, no ground for quashing is made out by the petitioner in the present petition and the same is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved
Arguments
Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Shri R Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Hon'ble Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 13/01/2025 1. The petitioner, who is an accused in the case, has filed the present Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 2 / 7 challenging the entire charge sheet dated 14.03.2023 pursuant to the FIR No. 111 of 2022 registered at Police Station Kansabel, District Jashpur for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. He made the following prayer in the present petition: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant 482 petition filed by the petitioners and the Entire Charge Sheet dated 14.03.2023 pursuant to F.I.R dated 22.07.2022 bearing F.I.R no. 0111/2022 registered at P.S Kansabel, District Jashpur (C.G.)., may also kindly be quashed and the criminal proceedings bearing Criminal case no. 289/2023 in the matter of "State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Santosh Prasad Choudhary", pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bageecha, District Jashpur (C.G.) may also kindly be quashed, in the interest of justice.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that a written complaint was made by the respondent No. 2 at Police Station Kansabel, Outpost Dokda, District Jashpur with the allegation that he is a retired teacher and his saving bank account is running at State Bank of India, branch Kansabel in which his retiral dues has been deposited by him. His amount of gratuity Rs.12,67,128/- has also been deposited in his bank account. On 04.10.2021 when the amount could not be withdrawn from the ATM, he went to bank to get entries in his passbook. Then he came to know that in between period of 16.05.2018 to 04.10.2021, total Rs. 23,64,059.18 has been illegally withdrawn from his account. He came to know from the bank that it was illegally withdrawn/transferred by Santosh Prasad Chaudhary. He is the 3 / 7 person, who gave him the ATM card and password in an open envelope. Since said person is his student, therefore he trusted upon him and has taken the ATM card and password. He is unaware about the latest technology. Since his hard-earned money has been illegally withdrawn by the accused, appropriate action may be taken against him. On the complaint made by the respondent No.2, an FIR of Crime No.111 of 2022 has been registered at Police Station Kansabel for the offence under Section 420 of IPC on 22.07.2022. After investigation, charge sheet is filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagicha, District Jashpur where the Criminal Case No. 289 of 2023 is pending. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the ATM card has been seized from the possession of the complainant himself and the petitioner was not in possession of the ATM card at any point of time. He himself has operated the ATM card as and when he was required cash. The allegation is levelled that since 2018, the petitioner is withdrawing money from his bank account and he was not in knowledge of the same, is absolutely impossible for anyone, because his phone number is also attached with the bank account, in which regularly messages are being transmitted to the concerned person, whenever the transaction is made. From the statement of the bank account, it also reflects that on 04.10.2021 about Rs. 10 lakh was balanced in the bank account of the complainant, whereas he made allegation that when he went to the ATM booth, amount could not be withdrawn from the bank and then he came to know about the illegal transaction. The complainant/respondent No. 2 is running the Kiosk 4 / 7 (Customer Service Point of NICT) at Uprghicha, Tahsil Kansabel District, Jashpur since 2014 and providing service of banking facilities with utmost good faith and without any complaints. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is absolutely false and the charge sheet against the petitioner as well as criminal prosecution pending against him pursuant to the said charge sheet is liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have submitted that there are ample material in the charge sheet which