Durg, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Lokesh Hirwani
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:45937-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1868 of 2019 Purnima Sahu Wife Of Santosh Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Ganjpara, Mealpara, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Lokesh Hirwani (Sahu) Son Of Bise Lal Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Nayapara Ward No. - 01, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. M.P.S.Bhatia, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer CRMP No. 2770 of 2025 Lokesh Hirwani S/o Biselal Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Nayapara, Ward No. 1, Durg, Tahsil And Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, P.S. Durg Kotwali, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh, (In The Order Impugned The State Of C.G. is arrayed Through The District Magistrate, Durg, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Purnima Sahu W/o Santosh Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o House No. 391, Ward No. 38, Behind Kabristan, Millpara, Near Goura Choura, Ganjpara, Durg, Tahsil And Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) (Cause Title Taken from Case Information System) 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.P.S.Bhatia, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 09/09/2025 1. Heard Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.P.S.Bhatia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 2 {in Cr.M.P. No. 1868/2019} and Mr. M.P.S.Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 {in Cr.M.P. No. 2770/2025}. 2. Since the parties to the proceedings are common and arise out of same offence, both the petitions are being heard and decided together. 3. The petitioner/complainant {in Cr.M.P. No. 1868/2019} seeks quashing of order dated 27.06.2019 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of First Additional Judge, Durg, in Criminal Revision No. 163/2019 by which the learned revisional Court has allowed the revision filed by the respondent No. 1-accused and directed to be released on bail. 4. At the outset, Mr. Dhurandhar, learned counsel for the petitioner- complainant submits that with the passage of time, this petition has been rendered infructuous as default bail has been granted to the accused/respondent No. 1. 3 5. Learned counsel for other side do not controvert the above submission. 6.
Decision
In view of the above submission, Cr.M.P. No. 1868/2019 is dismissed as having become infructuous. 7. So far as Cr.M.P. No. 2770/2025 is concerned, the petitioner-accused seeks quashing of FIR dated 06.12.2018 bearing Crime No. 1066/2018 registered at Police Station, Durg Kotwali, District Durg, for the offences under Sections 420, 201 of the IPC, quashing of the charge sheet as well as Criminal Case RCC/ 37798/2018 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg as well as the consequential proceedings. 8. As per the prosecution story, the complainant/respondent No. 2 gave contract of building her house over Khasra No. 323/136 area 1200 sq.ft. Situated at Sai Nagar, Baghera, P.H. No. 6/4, District Durg to the petitioner/accused for a consideration of Rs.9 Lakh. The respondent No. 1/complainant filed a suit before the learned First Additional District Judge, Durg, for recovery of Rs. 24 Lakhs which was registered as Civil Suit No. 12-B/2019 which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 02.09.2023. 9. The respondent No. 2/complainant claimed that the petitioner took two blank cheques and pass book of the bank account and on 07.12.2017, the house was sold through registry and cheque of Rs. 24 Lakh dated 30.11.2017 which was given to her was taken by the petitioner. As per the plaint, the cheque was deposited in the account of the respondent No. 2/complainant and the amount was withdrawn by the petitioner. When the petitioner did not pay her the said amount, then the respondent No. 2/complainant lodged an FIR bearing Crime No. 1066/2018 at Police Station, Durg under Sections 420 of the IPC. 10. Mr. Bhatia submits that in fact the present is a civil dispute which has 4 been given a colour of criminal offence. In fact, the respondent/ complainant had agreed to sell her half constructed house to the petitioner for consideration of about Rs. 6.50 Lakh and the petitioner completed the construction by purchasing the materials himself. The complainant had entered into agreement to sale dated 03.12.2016 with the petitioner in which it was mentioned that she had received Rs. 6,50,000/- being the complete and full cost of the landed property. Apart from that, she also executed a registered general power of attorney dated 07.10.2016 in favour of the petitioner before the Sub-Registrar, Durg. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2/complainant opposes this petition and prays for its dismissal. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 13. A specific query was made by this Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused as to what is the present status of the criminal trial, it is submitted by Mr. Bhatia that charges have been framed against the petitioner-accused way back on 06.03.2019 and the matter is fixed for evidence on 19.09.2025. Mr. Bhatia further submits that the trial could not be concluded as the respondent-complainant is not cooperating. 14. From perusal of the prayers and pleadings, it transpires that though the petitioner-accused has prayed for quashing of the FIR, the charge sheet and the entire criminal case, however, charges have been framed against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 420 and 201 of the 5 IPC on 06.03.2019 but neither the order taking cognizance nor the order framing charge has been specifically challenged before this Court and as such, the prayer is defective, which shows that the petition has been drafted in a casual manner. 15. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition {Cr.M.P. No. 2770/2025} with liberty to file a fresh petition with proper pleadings and prayers. 16. Learned counsel for other side have no objection. 17. In view of the above submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition {Cr.M.P. No. 2770/2025} is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for, subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 5000/- as cost before the Registry of this Court and producing a receipt of the same at the time of filing of the fresh petition, if any. The amount so deposited shall be transmitted to the Government Special School for Intellectual Retardation, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 18. Certified copies of the annexures and other documents, if any, may be returned back to the petitioner after retaining photocopies of the same. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.09.10 12:30:09 +0530