Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:47956-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR CRMP No. 2924 of 2025 Vinod Kumar Agrawal S/o Jogiram Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o Mahupara Main Road Raipur, P.S. Rajpur, Distt. Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Superintendent Of Police Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Rajpur, Distt. Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Santram S/o Late Bhaira Aged About 30 Years R/o Bhaski Chowki Bariyo Tehsil Rajpur, Distt. Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondent No.1 and 2 : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Arijit Tiwari, Advocate. Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18.09.2025 2 1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Arijit Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief(s): “1. That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to produce the entire record pertaining to in the case of petitioner. II. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the First Information Report bearing Crime Number 103/2025 dated 06.05.2025 registered at Police Station Rajpur against the present Petitioner at District Balrampur, C.G. under Sections 108 and Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, and Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as well as Charge sheet No.113 of 2025 and all consequent criminal proceedings in respect of Petitioner herein in light of justice and equity. III. That, the order dated 31.07.2025 of charge framing under Sections 108 and Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, and Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 passed in Special Case (Atrocity)/28/2025 may be quashed in respect of Petitioner herein in the interest of justice (deleted as per the Court’s order dated 18.09.2025). 3 IV. To quash the order dated 21/07/2025 by which cognizance of the offence was taken by the Court of Special Judge Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, Balrampur (C.G.) in Special Case (Atrocity)/28/2025, in the criminal case bearing Special Case (Atrocity)/28/2025 in respect of Petitioner herein. V. That this Hon'ble court may further be pleased to pass any other order in favor of petitioner as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost.” 3. The facts of the case are that the present FIR is a merg intimation recorded to the effect that deceased Bhaira, father of the complainant, was residing with him and on 21.04.2025, after having dinner at about 10:00 P.M., the deceased went to sleep, and on the next morning i.e., 22.04.2025, the complainant’s daughter-in-law found him hanging with a nylon rope in the cowshed adjacent to his house; thereafter the complainant informed nearby residents and stated that his father had committed suicide under unidentified circumstances. During investigation, the police recorded the statements of the complainant and other witnesses who alleged that the petitioner and other accused persons had fraudulently executed a sale deed from the wife of the deceased in favour of one Shivaram Nagesiya in November 2024 and had threatened the deceased saying, “Your land has now become mine; you must leave this place immediately,” and it is alleged that due to such threats the 4 deceased committed suicide, whereupon a First Information Report was registered against the petitioner and others on 06.05.2025 invoking the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. The entire dispute pertains to agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos. 210, 213/2, 215, 240/10, 241/1 and 245, admeasuring 0.656, 0.097, 0.150, 1.259, 0.172 and 0.134 hectares respectively, situated at Tehsil Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, belonging to Smt. Jubaro Bai, wife of the deceased and a co-sharer of the property, who, with the consent of other co- sharers, sold the land to Shivaram Nagesiya for a consideration of Rs.14,00,000/- on 18.11.2024, both seller and purchaser belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community, and the entire sale consideration was received and a registered sale deed executed on the same date. Aggrieved by the execution of the sale deed, the complainant filed a complaint before Police Station Rajpur alleging fraud upon his mother, but after due inquiry the police, by proceedings dated 28.11.2024 (Annexure P/5), found no evidence of harassment or fraud and advised that the dispute was civil in nature and should be taken to a competent civil court. Instead of challenging the sale deed before a civil forum, the complainant filed another complaint dated 23.04.2025 before respondent No. 2 alleging that, at the instance of the petitioner, the purchaser committed forgery in execution of the sale deed, and respondent No. 2, without verifying the earlier record or the report dated 5 28.11.2024, hastily registered FIR No. 90/2025 for offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. It is noteworthy that the said FIR was lodged immediately after the suicide of the complainant’s father on 22.04.2025, yet it contains no specific allegation of abetment of suicide against the petitioner, whose name was subsequently added during investigation in Crime No. 103/2025, and the prosecution has brought no evidence to show that the petitioner was involved in execution of the sale deed in any manner. The complainant has thus lodged the FIR with mala fide intent to harass the petitioner, particularly when the actual purchaser, Shivaram Nagesiya, has not been impleaded as an accused either in the FIR or in the charge-sheet dated 23.07.2025. Hence, the present petition. 5. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR No.103/2025 dated 06.05.2025 and the chargesheet dated 23.07.2025 are false, frivolous, and an abuse of process. Even if accepted at face value, the allegations disclose no prima facie offence under Section 108 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (abetment of suicide) or under Sections 3(2) (v) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter called as ”the Act of 1989”). The dispute arises purely from a civil property transaction in which the petitioner had no role in negotiation, execution, or registration of the sale deed dated 18.11.2024, 6 which was executed between the lawful owner Jubaro Bai and the purchaser Shivaram Nageshiya. No evidence shows any instigation, direct or indirect act, or mens rea by the petitioner to abet suicide, as required by settled law (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604; M. Arjunan v. State, (2019) 3 SCC 315; Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301; SS Chheena v. Vijay Kumar, (2010) 12 SCC 190). Mere harassment or the complainant’s caste identity cannot attract the SC/ST Act (Khuman Singh v. State of M.P., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1104). The complainant has suppressed pending civil proceedings for cancellation of the sale deed, while selectively implicating the petitioner and not the actual purchaser. Continuation of the criminal case would cause irreparable harm to the petitioner’s liberty, reputation, and career and amounts to malicious prosecution. He further submits that the allegation made in the FIR as well as material collected during the investigation do not make out any offence defined under the Act of 1989 against the petitioner. He also submits that the complainant himself has filed the FIR suppressing the fact that he has approached the Sub-Divisional Officer for cancellation of sale deed which is pending and the said proceedings was subject of challenge before this Court by purchaser Shivaram Nageshiya, which has been stayed by this Court in WPC No.4460/2025. In view of these circumstances and the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) and other binding precedents, this 7 Court is empowered under Section 482 CrPC (corresponding Section 528 BNSS) to quash the FIR and chargesheet to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. 6. Per contra, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 2/State opposes the submissions advanced by learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and submits that the FIR discloses prima facie cognizable offences. As such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 8. This Court is guided by the settled principles governing inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS). Interference at the stage of FIR or after filing of charge-sheet is warranted only where: (a) the allegations do not disclose any offence even if taken at face value; or (b) the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides or are maliciously instituted (See Bhajan Lal, supra). 9. From perusal of the contents of the FIR, it transpires that a postmortem examination of the body was conducted. Statements were taken from complainant Santram and witnesses Smt. Sukhmania, Basat, Bhala, and Smt. Bhinsari (all Pahadi Korwa, residents of Village Bheski). They stated that in November 2024, Vinod Agrawal @ Madhu and Praveen Agrawal deceitfully took the deceased’s wife, Juyaro Bai, to Rajpur Tehsil office and 8 secretly registered the deceased’s land in the name of Shivaram Nagesia of village Navki, Police Station Rajpur. After that, Vinod Agrawal @ Madhu, Praveen Agrawal, and their associates Sudama, Raju, Rajendra, Pintu, and Dilip Tigga used to threaten deceased Bhaira, saying that his land now belonged to them and he must leave. They repeatedly intimidated and threatened to beat or kill him. Distressed by this harassment, Bhaira Ram committed suicide by hanging. In the postmortem report of the dead body, the doctor has written that the death of the deceased was due to hanging or suffocation. Investigation revealed that the threats and intimidation by Vinod Agrawal @ Madhu, Praveen Agrawal, and their associates led the deceased to hang himself, constituting an offence under Section 108(3)(5) of the BNSS. 10. In the present case, the FIR and witness statements specifically allege that the petitioner and co-accused fraudulently procured the sale deed and thereafter threatened and harassed the deceased, saying “Your land has now become mine; you must leave immediately,” which allegedly led to his suicide. Whether these allegations ultimately result in conviction is a matter of evidence. At this stage, the FIR prima facie discloses ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 108 BNS, and also attracts Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989 since the deceased was a member of a Scheduled Tribe and the offence is alleged to have been committed on account of his caste and in connection with his property. Disputed questions regarding the petitioner’s role, 9 intent, and the voluntariness of the sale deed require appreciation of evidence, which is the exclusive domain of the trial Court. This Court cannot embark upon a meticulous examination of facts or conduct a mini-trial at the stage of considering quashment. 11. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2020) 10 SCC 180, the Supreme Court 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. 12. In State Represented by the Inspector of Police v. M.Maridoss & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.67/2023), decided on 9.1.2023, the Supreme Court has observed that it is a settled position of law that while exercising powers under Section 482, CrPC, the High Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. What is required to be considered at that stage is the nature of accusations and allegations in the FIR and whether the averments/allegations in 10 the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of the cognizable offence or not. 13. From perusal of Annexure P-8 at page 201 of the petition, it appears that co-accused Praveen Agrawal had filed writ petition bearing WPCR No.451 of 2025, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 13.08.2025, wherein this Court held as under:- “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 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.” 14. Having perused the contents of the FIR lodged by the complainant/respondent No.3, this Court is of the considered opinion that, prima facie, the allegations disclose the commission 11 of a cognizable offence. Therefore, it cannot be said that no offence is made out warranting interference at this stage. The present petition does not fall within the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing of the FIR and charge-sheet. 15. It is further noted that a writ petition preferred by the co-accused, namely Praveen Agrawal, bearing WPCR No. 451 of 2025, seeking similar reliefs, has already been dismissed by this Court. There is no material distinction in the present matter warranting a different view from that already taken in the aforesaid case. 16. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu