Chattisgarh High Court
Chitrarekha Devdas vs Amrita Singh Sengar on 10 May, 2024
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:17156
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Reserved on 28.02.2024
Pronounced on 10.05.2024
CRMP No. 790 of 2021
1. Chitrarekha Devdas W/o Ashok Kumar Devdas, Aged About 46 Years
R/o Village Farasiya, Police Station Nagri, Presently Residing At
Sinchai Colony, Qtr. No. G-14, Rudri, Police Station Rudri, District
Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
2. Ashok Kumar Devdas S/o Late Shri Dayaram Devdas, Aged About 56
Years R/o Village Farasiya, Police Station Nagri, Presently Residing
At Sinchai Colony, Qtr. No. G-14, Rudri, Police Station Rudri, District
Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
3. Chandrakant Devdas S/o Ashok Kumar Devdas, Aged About 23
Years R/o Village Farasiya, Police Station Nagri, Presently Residing
At Sinchai Colony, Qtr. No. G-14, Rudri, Police Station Rudri, District
Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
4. Ku. Meghni Devdas D/o Ashok Kumar Devdas Aged About 25 Years
R/o Village Farasiya, Police Station Nagri, Presently Residing At
Sinchai Colony, Qtr. No. G-14, Rudri, Police Station Rudri, District
Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. Amrita Singh Sengar W/o Rakesh Singh Sengar, Aged About 35
Years (Constable, Civil Line, Rudri), R/o Sinchai Colony, Qtr. No. G-
25, Rudri, Police Station Rudri, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
(Complainant), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Rudri, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioners : Mrs. Smita Jha, Advocate
For State : Mr. Mohd. Ruhul Ameen Memon, Panel
Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
C.A.V. ORDER
1. The petitioners have filed the present Cr.M.P. under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against registration of FIR No. 46/2020 at Police Station Civil Line, Rudri, District Dhamtari (C.G.) for offence punishable under Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:17156 2 Sections 294, 323, 506, 354, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequent Criminal Case No 620/2020 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh).
2. The prosecution case in brief is that respondent No. 1/complainant resides in the Rudri Irrigation Colony. Petitioner No. 1 and one lady were talking to each other and were saying that on 10.07.2020 one lady was saying something about character of respondent No. 1 and when it was heard by respondent No. 1, she verified the case from petitioner No. 1 and told her that she has no right to put allegations against her then she asked respondent No. 1 to swear upon her family member to which she refused. She started abusing and all of a sudden, she fell down by slipping in the drainage. Thereafter, her husband Ashok Devdas, son and daughter came there and started abusing her and had also assaulted her and thereafter made an attempt to tear her clothes. Thereafter she has filed a complaint under Sections 294, 323, 506, 354, 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. Thus, on the basis of the complaint, FIR for the said offences has been leveled against them.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the entire allegations levelled against the petitioners are forged and fabricated and on the basis of complaint made by the petitioners, FIR under the Atrocities Act has also been registered against respondent No. 1 by the Police at Police Station Rudri. To demonstrate this fact, she has submitted copy of the FIR bearing Crime No. 45/2020 dated 22.07.2020 for registration of offence under Sections 294, 323, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(p) & 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:17156 3
4. The prosecution case is that on the date of incident on 12.07.2020 when she was returning from evening walk and they were talking at one of their friends house, respondent No. 1/Amrita Singh came and started abusing them by caste and also put allegations against black magic, abused them and threatened by caste also. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR bearing Crime No. 45/2020 has been registered against her also. Thus, she would submit that the complainant herself was involved in the commission of offence as such the registration of FIR, is nothing but an abuse of process of law and would pray for quashing of the entire proceedings initiated against them. She would further submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. C. H. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 Sc 604 has held that FIR can be quashed when the allegation made in the FIR or in the complaint even if they are taken in their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make a case against the accused, thus the FIR may kindly be quashed. She would further submit that the sole purpose of the FIR is to harass and to falsely implicate the petitioners and tarnish their reputation and children career hence malafide in nature and would pray for quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No. 46/2020 registered before Police Station Rudri for commission of offence under Sections 294, 323, 506, 354, 34 of the IPC.
5. The State has filed its return wherein they have stated that on the basis of the complaint made by respondent No. 1, FIR has been registered and after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted by the prosecution. He would further submit that the complainant in Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:17156 4 her complaint had narrated the incident taken place with her in the FIR and she was also subjected to medical examination wherein some injury though not grievous has been found in her body. It has also been stated that the complainant in her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. has reiterated the same incident which has been mentioned in the FIR and in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., she has reiterated the same incident. The witnesses- Laxmi Sahu and Jaya Sahu were also examined and have reiterated the same thing. Thus, he would submit that there is sufficient material against the petitioners to proceed with the trial. He would further submit that in the return State has further contended that the stand taken by the petitioners that they were not involved in the commission of the offence, is their defence which can be very well adjudicated before the trial Court.
6. The record of the case would show that respondent No. 2 was served with the notice for appearance but she has chosen not to appear and this Court vide order dated 21.04.2022 has stayed further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 620/2020 arising of FIR No. 46/2020 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari. Thereafter, the matter was taken up before this Court on 19.02.2024. On that day, this Court has directed the Investigating Officer to remain present before this Court on 22.02.2024 along with case diary. In pursuance of direction issued by this Court, ASI, Mr. Ghanshyam Verma, Police Station Rudri, District Dhamtari was present on 28.02.2024 and has also placed on record the case diary before this Court for perusal of this Court. The respondent No. 1 despite notice has chosen not to appear before this Court, therefore, Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:17156 5 this Court considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State as well as case diary of the case has decided the case. To substantiate his submission, counsel for State would refer to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani & others {(2017) 2 SCC 779, State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (19920 Supp. 1 SCC 335, M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2021 SC 1918, Monica Kumar (Dr.) vs. State of UP reported 2008 (8) SCC 781 and Mrs. Dhanalakshmi vs. R. Prasanna Kumar 1990 SCC supl. 686.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would reiterate the same submission which she has made in the petition and would submit that from bare perusal of the FIR, no ingredients of offence under 294, 323, 506, 354, 34 of the IPC, are available as such, she would pray for quashing of the case. She would further submit that the registration of FIR may adversely affect the future aspect of the petitioner Nos. 3 & 4 as they are young boy and girl and their future to get employment will be adversely affected. Thus, she would pray for quashing of the FIR.
8. From perusal of records, it is quite vivid that the complainant in FIR has categorically narrated the incident, how it has taken place and the allegation regarding involvement of the petitioners, is also available. From bare perusal of the FIR and the complaint made by respondent No. 1 and also considering the statement recorded under Section 161 & 164 of the Cr.P.C., it is quite vivid that, there is some material which prima facie suggests that the petitioners were involved in the commission of offence. So far as the contention of the Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:17156 6 learned counsel for the petitioners that FIR has also been registered against respondent No. 1 for commission of offence under Sections 294, 323, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(p) & 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Act, cannot dilute the allegations leveled against her.
9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that prima facie there is no material against the petitioners regarding involvement in the commission of the offence, which is their defence and the same can be adjudicated while recording of the evidence, as such, all the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the incident, are his defence which can very well be adjudicated before the trial Court where the offence can be led.
10. The contention of the petitioners that the FIR against respondent No. 1 has been lodged against the Atrocity Act for the offence under Sections 294, 323, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(p) & 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Act, is not relevant at present for quashing of the criminal trial as it is to be posed upon different trial Court whether the petitioners were involved in the commission of offence or not.
11. Considering the above stated position and also considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to the power of High Court to interfere in the criminal matters while exercising its power under Section 482 of the CrPC has held that High Courts cannot conduct a mini trial to quash entire criminal proceedings. Few of the judgments are as under:-
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar & others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor {(2013) 3 SCC 330}, held as under:-
Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:17156 7 "28. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., must make a just and rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of allegations levelled by the prosecution/ complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is 2 (2013) 3 SCC 330 not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused is. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/ complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so, because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/ complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed, by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position, that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has levelled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani & others {(2017) 2 SCC 779}, held as under:-
"15. We have referred to the said decisions only to stress upon the issue, how the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court in a proceeding relating to quashment of FIR can be justified. We repeat even at the cost of repetion that the said power has to be exercised in a very sparing manner and is not to be used to choke or smother the prosecution that is legitimate. The surprise that was expressed almost four decades ago in Kurukshetra University case compels us to observe that we are also surprised by the impugned order."
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & others {AIR 2021 SC 1918}, held as under, relevant paragraphs are reproduced below:-
"iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the 'rarest of rare cases (not to be 3 Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:17156 8 (2017) 2 SCC 779 4 AIR 2021 SC 1918 confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-
interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.
Again the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. AryanSingh {Criminal Appeal Nos. 1025-1026 of 2023 dated 10.04.2023} has held as under :-
"4.1 From the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:17156 9 applications against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Courton conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution / investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution / investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not".
12. In view of the well settled position of law, this Court while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot conduct mini trial to examine the genuineness or correctness of the allegations made in the FIR. In view of the above stated position of law and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and Section 164 of Cr.P.C., I am of the view that all the stand taken by the petitioners is their defence which can be very well adjudicated by the trial Court while recording of the evidence, therefore, the instant Cr.M.P. deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.
13. The interim order passed by this Court on 21.04.2022 is vacated.
14. With the above observations and directions, the present Cr.M.P. is dismissed.
15. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on merit of the case. Learned trial Court is directed to decide the trial on its own Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:17156 10 merit considering the material, evidence placed on record without being influenced by any of observation made by this Court.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika