Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:44388 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2015 of 2023 Shyam Lal Chouhan S/o Ganesh Ram Chouhan Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Dhuranpali, P.S. Pusaur, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Deputy Superintendent of Police, Police Station, Adim Jati Kalyan Thana Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2. Thana Incharge Police Station Pusaur, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3. Vijay Sharma S/o Bhururathe Sharma Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Badehardi, P.S. Pusaur, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, learned Deputy Government Advocate and Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.09.02 17:04:56 +0530 01.09.2025 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Judgment on Board 1. Today, this matter is listed on admission. However, the matter is heard finally with the consent of both the parties. 2. The appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 2 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, the Atrocities Act) for setting aside the order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities Act), Raigarh, District – Raigarh, in Complaint Case No. 1425/2023 whereby the learned Special Judge has rejected the application of the appellant/complainant filed under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, this appeal. 3. As per the prosecution case, an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. has been submitted on behalf of the appellant, stating that the appellant belongs to a Scheduled Caste and is a resident of Village Dhooranpali, Tehsil Pusaur, District Raigarh. He is currently serving as the village Kotwar (village guard) in Dhooranpali, and in return for this service, the government has allotted him Kotwari service land in Village Badehardi since 1975– 76. This land is recorded under Khasra Number 636/4, with a total area of 0.85 acres, which the appellant has been cultivating continuously. On 17.06.2022, the appellant had sown a paddy crop on this land, which was damaged by Vijay Sharma, who forcefully created an embankment and caused destruction to the crop, thereby obstructing the appellant from carrying out agricultural activities. Further, the paddy crop was harvested and taken away. On 19.11.2022, when the appellant went to inspect his paddy field, he found that half of the crop was already missing. Upon inquiry from nearby villagers and people around the field, it was informed that Vijay Sharma had brought a harvester machine and harvested the paddy. Vijay Sharma has been continuously 3 preventing the appellant from cultivating the said land and has also issued threats to his life and safety. The appellant has informed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsildar Raigarh, and Tehsildar Pusaur from time to time regarding these incidents, and they have even prepared a spot inspection report (Panchanama). 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that despite the appellant lodging a complaint regarding the incident at Police Station Pusaur on 20.11.2022, no action was taken. A written complaint was also submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh, but no action was taken by them either. On the basis of these acts, an application has been submitted seeking the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) for offences under the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In support of the application, a copy of the judgment dated 12.11.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1410/2011 and Criminal Appeal No. 1267/2007 in the case of (Lalita Kumari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others) has been submitted. 5. Learned State counsel submits that the order passed by the learned trial Court is well reasoned order which warrants no interference. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the learned trial Court. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is observed that the 4 appellant has not mentioned anywhere that respondent No.3 have committed any offence on the basis of caste. The application, upon review, appears to reflect a dispute related to land, which is civil in nature. In such a situation, there remains no justification for issuing a direction to register a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In this regard, reference is made to the legal precedent laid down in Criminal Appeal No. _ /2022, S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 5866/2022 (Usha Chakraborty & Others vs. State of West Bengal & Others), specifically in paragraph 11 of the order dated 30 January 2023. “11. In the aforesaid circumstances, coupled with the fact that in respect of the issue involved, which is of civil nature, the respondent had already approached the jurisdictional civil court by instituting a civil suit and it is pending, there can be no doubt with respect to the fact that the attempt on the part of the respondent is to use the criminal proceedings as weapon of harassment against the appellants. The indisputable facts that the respondent has filed the pending title suit in the year 2015, he got no case that he obtained an interim relief against his removal from the office of Secretary of the School Managing Committee as also the trusteeship, that he filed the stated application for an order for investigation only in April, 2017 together with absence of a case that despite such removal he got a right to get informed of the affairs of the school and also the trust, would only support the said conclusion. For all these reasons, we are of the considered view that this case invites invocation of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR registered based on the direction of the Magistrate Court in the afore- 5 stated application and all further proceeding in pursuance thereof. Also, we have no hesitation to hold that permitting continuance of the criminal proceedings against the appellants in the aforesaid circumstances would result in abuse of the process of Court and also in miscarriage of justice.” 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the finding recorded by the learned trial Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and hence, no interference is called for. Thus, this appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti