Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.08.14 19:16:36 +0530 2025:CGHC:40758-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 451 of 2025 Praveen Agrawal S/o Jogiram Agrawal Aged About 45 Years R/o Mahuwapara Main Road, Rajpur, Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) versus ... Petitioner 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Naya Raipur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 2 - Santram S/o Late Bahira Aged About 30 Years R/o Bhaski Chowki Bariyo Tehsil Rajpur- District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Manoj Paranjape, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy.G.A. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13/08/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filled for following reliefs:- “1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 06.05.2025 bearing No. 90/2025 registered at Police Station- Naya Rajpur, 2 District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh for the alleged offences punishable Under Sections 108 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and subsequent to the filing of the FIR, Section 3(2)(v) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been lodged on the instance of respondent No.2 and the subsequent proceeding arising out of the present crime no. 103/2025 so far it relates to the petitioner is concerned.” 2. (A) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the land of Zubaro Bai was registered in a joint account with others. Zubaro Bai's son is the complainant Santram and her husband Bhaira Ram (deceased) was a Pahadi Korwa. Petitioner and co-accused Vinod Kumar Agarwal fraudulently and deceitfully got the land of Zubaro Bai registered in the name of Shivaram on 18/11/2024 without partition, in respect of which no money was given to Zubaro Bai. On the written complaint of Zubaro Bai and Santram S/o deceased Bhaira Ram, Police registered Crime No.90/2025 on 23/04/2025 under sections 318, 338, 336, 340, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (B) On the death of Bhaira Ram on 22/04/2025, on the information of his son Santram, Merg was registered and enquiry was conducted. On the second written complaint of complainant Santram and after Merg enquiry, on 06/05/2025, Crime No.103/2025 under sections 108, 3(5) of BNS, 2023 was 3 registered against the petitioner and other co-accused at Police Station New Rajpur, in which section 3 2 (v) of the SC/ST Act was also added later. The said crime was registered on the basis of written complaint of Santram and also on the basis that in the Merg enquiry it was found that the petitioner, co-accused and the other companions used to tell Bhaira Ram that now the land belongs to them and he should run away and was harassed by threatening to beat him, due to which Bhaira Ram committed suicide by hanging himself in the intervening night of 21/22 April, 2025. 3. (i) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the date of execution of the sale deed is stated to be 18/11/2024. The suicide by Bhaira Ram is said to have occurred on the intervening night of 21 & 22/04/2025. Thereafter on 23/04/2025, the first Crime No.90/2025 was registered on the written complaint of his son Santram, in which there are other accused and no facts have been mentioned for abetting/instigating Bhaira Ram to commit suicide. In Crime No.90/2025, the co-accused have been granted regular bail. He would submit that both crime numbers i.e. 90/2025 and 103/2025 have been registered after the death of Bhaira Ram. (ii) The further argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of registration of Crime No.90/2025 on 23.04.2025, Bhaira Ram had died but no fact has been mentioned in that regard in the FIR of Crime No.90/2025. Crime No.103/2025 4 has been registered against the present petitioner after a long time on 06/05/2025. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the above argument of the petitioner. He would submit that in Crime No.90/2025, the original complaint is of fraudulently executed the sale deed of the land of Zubaro Bai in the name of someone else without giving her any consideration amount, in which other accused apart from the petitioner are involved. The said crime (Crime No.90/2025) was definitely registered on 23/04/2025 but its written complaint was given to the Police earlier and it does not appear that at the time of giving written complaint, Bhaira Ram had died. Hence, after the death of Bhaira Ram, a separate written complaint was given by his son Santram, based on which and after Merg enquiry on the death of Bhaira Ram, on 06/05/2025, the second First Information Report has been registered against the petitioner and other co- accused in Crime No.103/2025. Learned state counsel submits that the investigation of the case is incomplete, in this situation, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel would submit that in respect of the present FIR, the petitioner herein has filed bail application bearing CRA No.1115/2025, which was decided by this Court by order dated 01/07/2025. Against the said order, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court by filing SLP No.11708/2025, which was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 11/08/2025. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as sought for in 5 this petition. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents 6. Bare perusal of the pleading and the material available on record, it is quite vivid that in both the crimes have been registered by the police on the written complaint of complainant Santram. It is also clear that the petitioner is the accused in both the crimes. The deceased commit suicide because of the harassment made by the petitioner, which compelled him to commit suicide. There are 6 criminal cases registered against the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that in respect of the present FIR, the petitioner herein has filed bail application bearing CRA No.1115/2025, which was decided by this Court by order dated 01/07/2025. Against the said order, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court by filing SLP No.11708/2025, which was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 11/08/2025. In the case at hand, the petitioner failed to establish the case in his favour by placing sufficient and cogent materials. 7. After having examined the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned F.I.R., we are of the opinion that the impugned F.I.R. discloses cognizable offence against the petitioner, hence, no interference is called for by this Court in its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the F.I.R. or for grant of any interim relief to the petitioner and also in view of the law laid down in Criminal 6 Appeal No. 330 of 2021 (M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others), by the Apex court vide judgment and order dated 13.04.2021, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Decision
8. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Gowri/ Amardeep