Onimesh Sinha v. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home Mahanadi

Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate Mr. Hari Om Rai, P.L. 2 Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 07 .01.2025

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is an accused in the Crime No. 382 of 2022 registered under Section 354(A), 509, 427, 354(D) and 506 of IPC and Section 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act (in short POCSO Act) of the Special Criminal POCSO case No. 39/2024 pending before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Special Court, POCSO Act, Ambikapur, Dist- Surguja and prayed for the following reliefs:

1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR dated 09.05.2022 registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) under Crime No. 0382/2022, for the offence punishable Under Section 354(A), 509, 427, 354(D), 506 of the IPC and Section 7 & 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire charge sheet bearing Number 289/2024 dated 25.05.2024 filed against the petitioner at Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) under Crime No. 0382/2022, for the offence punishable Under Section 354(A), 509, 427, 354(D), 506 of the IPC and Section 7 & 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be further pleased to quash the Special Criminal POSCO Case No. 39/2024 pending before Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Special Court (POSCO Act), Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) in pursuance of FIR dated 09.05.2022 and charge sheet dated 25.05.2024 filed against the petitioner.

4. any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioners.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 4 and 5 have made a written complaint to the Police Station, City Kotwali, Ambikapur against the petitioner that the petitioner is having evil eye upon them since 4-5 3 years and tried to outrage the modesty of her younger sister. He attempted to outrage her modesty and made vulgar gestures. When they tried to stop him, he started quarreling and has made report to the Police against them. He is having political background and harassed them by various means. On the report of the complainant/ private respondents No. 4 and 5, the FIR of Crime No. 382/2022 has been registered at Police Station, Ambikapur for the offence under Section 354 (A) and 509 of IPC. After investigation, charge- sheet was filed on 25/05/2024 for the offence under Section 354(A), 509, 427, 354(D) and 506 of IPC and Section 7 and 8 of POCSO Act and the Special Criminal Case (POCSO) No. 39 of 2024 is pending before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, POCSO Act, Ambikapur, Dist- Surguja which is under Challenge in the present Criminal Miscellaneous petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complainants have maliciously instituted the criminal case against the petitioner with the ulterior motive to settle their personal grudge. The vague allegations have been levelled in the FIR against the petitioner. There are previous dispute between the parties and allegations and counter-allegations have been levelled by each of the party. It is only an apprehension of the complainants that petitioner is having evil eye upon them and tried to out rage her modesty whereas there is no such incident occurred at any time. The complainants have repeatedly lodged FIR against the petitioner to anyhow convict him in the offence. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is general and superficial without having any basis. Repeated lodging of complaint against the petitioner itself shows their mala fide intention and therefore, the present FIR as well as criminal proceeding against the petitioner may be quashed. 4

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent would submit that once the FIR has been registered, it has to be investigated and taken to its logical end. After investigation charge-sheet has been filed. Thus, at this stage, no interference is warranted in view of the judgment of the M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others, (2021) 19 SCC 401 and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR and document annexed with the petition.

6. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), 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 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.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, further considering the nature of allegations and the material collected during the investigation, evidence available in the charge-sheet against the petitioner and that allegation and counter allegation are levelled against each other, it would be very difficult for this Court to conclude that a false report has been 5 lodged by the complainants and the same requires adjudication after recording evidence of the parties and in the light of judgment passed by the Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we do not find any good ground for interference.

8. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Sagrika