Harsh Kumar Shende S/o Shiv Kumar Dharma Shende, aged about 60 Years R/o House v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station- New Rajendra
Case Details
1 ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2025:CGHC:38952-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2419 of 2025 Harsh Kumar Shende S/o Shiv Kumar Dharma Shende, aged about 60 Years R/o House No.3 Mahamaya Vihar, New Gayatri Nagar, Police Station- Khamhardih, District- Raipur, C.G. --- Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station- New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 2 - XYZ (Complainant) CRMP No. 2458 of 2025 Harsh Kumar Shende S/o Shiv Kumar Dharma Shende, aged about 60 Years R/o House No. 3 Mahamaya Vihar, New Gayatri Nagar, Police Station - Khamhardih, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondents ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 2 - XYZ (Complainant) --- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal and Mr. Sheshav Shankar Barik, Advocates For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal and Mr. Swajeet Uboweja, Panel Lawyers
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 06.08.2025 1. Since both the above captioned petitions are filed by the same petitioner for quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against 2 him on the basis of FIRs lodged by the same complainant, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal and Mr. Sheshav Shankar Barik, learned counsel for the petitioner as well asMr. Nitansh Jaiswal and Mr. Swajeet Uboweja, learned Panel Lawyers, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 in both the petitions. 3. CRMP No. 2419 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) seeking following reliefs : “(i) Quash the impugned FIR dated 27.07.2023 bearing Crime No. 263/2023 registered at Police Station, New Rajendra Nagar, District-Raipur (C.G.) for the offence under Section 376(2)(n), 506 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. (ii) Quash the impugned Final Report No. 95/2024 dated 15.03.2024 filed by Police Station, New Rajendra Nagar, District-Raipur (C.G.) before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District-Raipur for the offence under Section 376(2)(n), 506 of IPC against the petitioner (Annexure P/1). (iii) Quash the entire criminal proceedings pending in Sessions Trial No. 144/2024 before the learned Sessions. Judge, Raipur, District-Raipur for the offence under Section 376(2)(n), 506 of IPC against the petitioner. (iv) Quash the impugned order dated 11.07.2024 passed in Sessions Trial No. 144/2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C. Raipur District-Raipur and discharge the petitioner from the charges under 3 Section 376 (2)(k)(n) & 506 Part-II of IPC. (v) Grant any other relief (s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in favour of petitioner may also be granted.” 4. CRMP No. 2458 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS seeking following reliefs : “(i) Quash the impugned FIR dated 22.03.2024 bearing Crime No. 150/2024 registered at Police Station, Kotwali Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) for the offence under Section 294, 323, 506, 376 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. (ii) Quash the impugned Final Report No. 153/2024 dated 19.05.2024 filed by Police Station, Kotwali Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur, for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC against the petitioner (Annexure P/1). (iii) Quash the order of cognizance dated 25.06.2024 taken by learned the Session Judge under section 376(2)(n) and entire criminal proceedings pending in Sessions Trial No. 27/2024 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C., Jagdalpur, District- Bastar for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC against the petitioner. (iv) Quash the impugned order dated 14.08.2024 passed in Sessions Trial No. 27/2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C. Jagdalpur District- Bastar and discharge the petitioner from offence under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC. (v) Grant any other relief (s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in favour of petitioner may also be granted.” 4 5. It has been argued by Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a married man aged about 60 years and this fact was very well within the knowledge of the victim. He would further submit that the respondent No.2 (victim) is also a married lady having two children and the petitioner and the victim maintained consensual relationship for considerable period and during that period many times the petitioner had financially helped the victim and the victim had also approached the wife of the petitioner and demanded money, therefore, a complaint was lodged by the wife of the petitioner on 19.07.2023 against the victim and the same was registered for the commission offfences punishable under Sections 385 and 506 of IPC on the same date and thereafter to counterblast such report, the victim lodged an F.I.R. on 27.07.2023 against the petitioner as Case Crime No. 263/2023 at Police Station, Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) for commission of offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) & 506 of IPC, in the charge-sheet has also been submitted against the petitioner and he has applied for anticipatory bail before this Court and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 15.09.2023 in MCRCA No. 1043 of 2023 after hearing learned counsel for the parties, a copy of said order has been annexed as Annexure-P/3 in CRMP No. 2419 of 2025, which has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the proceedings of the said case. It is further submitted that the complainant had further moved an application i.e. CRMP No. 5 2602 of 2023 for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted by this Court on the ground that after knowledge of registration of FIR, the petitioner used to give serious threatening to her for withdrawal of FIR and he has also provided threatening to the her through other persons and thereby pressurizing her for withdrawal of the FIR and the said petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28.03.2025, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-P/8 in CRMP No. 2458 of 2025. 6. Mr. Khetrapal further submitted that the complainant / respondent No.2 has further lodged an FIR on 22.03.2024 bearing case Crime No. 150/2024 at Police Station, Kotwali Jagdalpur, District – Bastar for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323, 376 of IPC and the petitioner was arrested and he was granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 02.05.2024 in MCRC No. 2789 of 2024, a copy of said order annexed at page No. 130 of CRMP No. 2419 of 2025, which has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the proceedings of the said case. 7. It is further submitted by Mr. Khetrapal that both the impugned FIRs dated 27.07.2023 and 22.03.2024, final reports, impugned orders of framing charges and entire criminal cases pending against the petitioner, are bad in law, being perverse and erroneous, therefore liable to be set-aside/quashed. He also submitted that the petitioner is a government servant working on the post of Executive Engineer and the false and fabricated report has been lodged by the respondent No. 2 only for gaining money. 6 The respondent No. 2 is already married lady and from the wedlock of respondent No. 2 and her husband Roshan Chouhan, two children have been born, but subsequently her first marriage has been dissolved and as such, the respondent No.2 wants to somehow gain money from the petitioner, therefore after getting anticipatory bail in first crime, she lodged second false report against the petitioner at Police Station, Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District-Bastar. He lastly submitted that the respondent No. 2 is grown up and educated lady, she very well knows the pros and cons of such relationship, therefore, both the criminal proceedings i.e. Sessions Trial No. 144/2024 pending before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Raipur as well as Sessions Trial No. 27/2024 pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Jagdalpur, District – Bastar are liable to be set-aside/quashed 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel oppose both these petitions and submit that since the charge-sheets have been already been filed against the petitioner in both the cases after due investigation and perusal of the materials on record discloses commission of cognizable offence and further that the two formal witnesses have already been examined, as such, no interference is warranted at this stage. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court 7 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. 11. It has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, that the proceedings relating to cognizable ofences cannot be interfered except on certain grounds enumerated by the Apex Court in the said judgment. It is evident that, none of the grounds mentioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment are attracted in the present case. In State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani & others reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of cognizable ofence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR. 8 Also what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence. 12. From perusal of the contents of the FIRs as well as in the charge- sheet and materials available on record, it transpires that the impugned FIRs have been registered against the petitioner on the basis of specific allegation made by complainant for commission of forceful intercourse on the basis of false pretext of marriage, knowing that the victim is a divorce lady and having two children and in both the cases, after due investigation, charge-sheet has already been filed and charges have also been framed against the petitioner and the evidence of two formal witnesses have already been examined. 13. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court cannot come to a conclusion that prima facie, no case is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner will have every opportunity before the learned trial Court to rebut the allegations levelled against him. This Court cannot examine or appreciate the evidences that may be led before the learned Trial Court and stalling the trial would be wholly unjustified. Further, in light of what has been said by the Supreme Court in Bhajanlal (supra) and Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra), there appears to be no good ground for quashing of the charge-sheet. 14. Accordingly, the both the petitions are dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra