High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:11043-DB NAFR ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.03.07 10:19:07 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 155 of 2024 Manoj Singh Pawar S/o Late Shri Purushottam Singh Pawar Aged About 45 Years R/o 155 Pawar Badi, Behind Jute Mill, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Chowki Jutemill, P.S. Kotwali, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Nitu Singh W/o Durga Prasad Singh Aged About 46 Years 155 Pawar Badi, Behind Jute Mill Chowki, Chowki Jute Mill, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner For Respondent/State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Jitendra Shukla Advocate : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Chief Justice , Judge Hon'ble Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 06.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 2 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the petition, and quash F.I.R. dated 14/8/2022 along with the chargesheet 9/10/2014 filed by the respondent no.1 and Charge dated 14/10/2022 U/S 354-A, 506 and 509 I.P.C. in Criminal case No.1149/2022 - State vs Manoj Singh Pawar (Annexure P/1), in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2/ complainant is elder sister in law of the petitioner and reside in the same house /premises where the petitioner resides. The complainant had lodged First Information Report (for short, ‘FIR’) against the petitioner on 14.08.2022 at Police Chowki Jutemill Raigarh (C.G.) alleging that the petitioner had bed intentions towards her and on 13.8.02022, at about 7.00 AM in the morning, he entered into her bathroom and misbehaved with her by caught hold of her hand shoulder. The complainant screamed, to which her husband came and thereafter, the petitioner ran away. The complainant after consultation had come to the Police Station to file report against the petitioner. The police investigated the case on the complaint of the complainant and submitted charge-sheet before the 3 Court of Fourth Civil Judge Class-II and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh (C.G.). The learned Court on the basis of the charge-sheet submitted by the Police, framed charges against the petitioner on 14.10.2022 and proceeding with the trial against the petitioner on the charges punishable under Sections 354 -A, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”). 4. The petitioner had informed the police on 21.01.2020 about assault by his brother and sister-in-law (complainant) due to property dispute between them. The wife of the petitioner, therefore, had submitted application dated 11.05.2023 before the Superintendent of police, District Raigarh (C.G.) informing about the maltreatment and illegal conduct of the Investigating Officer, i.e. Sub Inspector Rekha Nagre, but no action was taken by the concerned authority. 5. Mr. Jitendra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that it is total case of false implication and there is no any substance in the complaint of the complainant and no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and if the entire charge-sheet may be taken as it is, no offences as alleged are made out against the petitioner and no ingredients of the offences as alleged are attracted in this case. It has been further argued that the petitioner had informed the Police on 21.01.2020 about assault by his brother and sister-in-law (complainant) due to property dispute between them, but no action has been taken on it. It has been contended that the petitioner had also submitted medical documents regarding treatment due to injury, but the Station House 4 Officer instead of registering the FIR under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. and taking action against his brother and sister-in-law (complainant), had registered it as information under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. and advised the petitioner to move before the competent Court. It has been further contended that the application for copy of the FIR and the investigation was submitted by the wife of the petitioner, on which she received three different copies of the FIR dated 14.08.2022 one with the false signature of the wife of petitioner, one without signature and another one with the signature of the complainant, which shows that the police authorities had been working and preparing documents and creating evidence in favour for the complainant. As such, the instant petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned FIR and further proceedings deserve to be quashed. He has placed reliance in the matter of Zahira Habibilla H. Sheikh and another vs State of Gujarat and others reported in 2004 (4) SCC 158 to buttress his submissions. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the FIR discloses the cognizable offence against the petitioner and as such, no interference is called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned FIR produced by the learned State counsel. 8. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal 5 proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 9. In the well celebrated judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 605, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Guidelines are as follows: “(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety to do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation 6 by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 156(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can every reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code 7 or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 10. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Supreme Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 8 11. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 of the 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 FIR in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 12. Keeping in view the aforesaid law and considering the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the submissions raised by learned counsel for petitioner relate to the questions of fact, and thus, can not be examined by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The appreciation of evidence or the reliability of the allegations cannot be examined at this stage. 13. From the above stated case laws, it is apparent that the above stated contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner can 9 not be examined by this Court. The adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). In view of the material on record, it can not be held that the impugned criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. FIR or criminal proceedings can be quashed only in accordance with parameters laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. 14. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly from the perusal of the FIR lodged by the complainant, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. The present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction to quash the impugned FIR and further proceedings. 15. In view of the aforesaid, the petition lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. 16. The instant Cr.M.P. filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu