Chattisgarh High Court
Pawan Kumar Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 April, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:18289-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPCR No. 228 of 2025
Pawan Kumar Agrawal S/o Radhe Shyam Agrawal Aged About 56 Years
Present Address Saket Extension Building, Agrasen Chowk, Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home
Affairs, State Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administration
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Director General Of Police Police Headquarter, Sector 19, Nawa
Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Director Directorate Public Prosecution, Block No. 3, Fourth Floor,
Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh
6 - Rajnesh Singh S/o Shri S.R. Singh Aged About 54 Years R/o M-5,
Agroha Society, Ring Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
7 - Station House Officer Police Station, Civil Line, Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondents Nos.1 to 5 & 7 : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl. AG.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 23.04.2025 Proceedings of the matter have been taken through video conferencing.
2. Heard, Mr. Himanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent/State and perused the records.
3. Petitioner has filed this writ petition with following prayers:
"10.1- That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent- authorities to constitute independent SIT consist of Officers Senior to the Accused's involved in the present case to investigate about the alleged misplacement/ disappearance of vital court's records as mentioned from S.No.1 to 27 of application dated 03/04/2025 filed in Crime no 791/2020 from the custody of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
10.2- That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct Respondent authorities to produce the original 35 pages which was seized and send to the forensic science laboratory, Raipur for forensic analysis; original letter dated 07/12/2020 issued by learned Judge K.R Rigri, First Additional Session judge, District Bilaspur by which he confirmed that there is no order sheet/records pertaining to 3 issuance of search warrant dated 29/12/2014; the PE Report dated 02/07/2019 bearing receipt no. P-3421 at S.P EOW Office made by shri Jeevan Prakash Kujur the then Police Inspector/EOW and other documents as mentioned from Serial no 1 to 27 of application dated 03/04/2025 filed before Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, CG.
10.3- That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct Respondent No.1 to transfer private Respondent No. 6 to some other district/office except Bilaspur and Raipur so that trial as well as prosecution cannot be affected and be completed in fair and impartial manner.
10.4- That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct Respondent Authorities to ensure the safe custody of remaining vital court records pertaining to Crime no 791/2020 registered at PS Civil Line, Bilaspur, CG.
10.5- That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct Respondent Authorities to ensure the safe custody of all the digital devices/records on which the data collected during the course of investigation was recorded and stored. Further, the system in which 161 statement of Mr. Rajendra Pradhan and Mr. Vijay Katre and report dated 13.12.2023 was Prepared and stored by the investigation agency of Civil Line Police station Bilaspur and it may be further directed to Respondent no. 6 as well as other co-accused not to temper or create antedated documents using their influence.
10.6- Any other relief the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted in the interest of justice."4
4. Relevant facts for disposal of this writ petition are that pursuant to complaint of contractor Vineet Singh dated 08/12/2010, Officers of Anti- Corruption Bureau (ACB) Office, Raipur, has raided the petitioner's house on 30.12.2014 with the search warrant dated 29.12.2014 having Crime no "...../14". Thereafter, petitioner was taken in judicial custody on 20.03.2015 in connection with Crime no.05/2015 registered at PS -EOW, Raipur. Petitioner received charge-sheet dated 24/06/2015 of crime no. 05/2015 in which the search warrant shown to the petitioner at the time of raid conducted in his house on 30.12.2014 was surprisingly made part of 05/2015 and that "..../2014"was interpolated with hand written Crime no."56/2014". Petitioner suspected some serious fraud & forgery by raiding team and, therefore, he moved an application for obtaining the certified copies of certain documents, but the application was returned with the reply that there was no record of search warrant dated 29.12.2014 pertaining to said Crime no 56/14. Hence, this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the complainant/victim in Crime No.791/2020 registered at PS -Civil Line, Bilaspur for investigating the fraud and forgery committed by the respondent No.6/Rajnesh Singh (the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur) alongwith other senior police officers by manipulating the FIR book of the concerned police station. Petitioner moved an application before the concerned Court for obtaining the certified copies of certain documents, but the application was returned with the reply that there was no record of search warrant dated 29.12.2014 pertaining to Crime No.56/2014. 5 Petitioner also moved an application for obtaining the certified copy of alleged FIR no. 56/14 towered u/s 157 CrPC, the same was received on 08/06/2017 from which it is clear that the said FIR was received by the concerned Special Judge, PC Act, Bilaspur on 05/01/2015 at 12:50 PM, whereas the alleged search warrant was shown as issued on 29/12/2014. Learned Counsel further contended that in the present case, closure report has been filed and the matter is subjudiced before the learned Magistrate for consideration of said closure report. Certain documents, which ought to have been supplied to the complainant/petitioner, have not been supplied to him. Hence, petitioner has come before this Court with aforesaid prayer.
5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner, who himself alongwith his brother Mr. Alok Kumar Agrawal are accused and are also facing trial in two cases ie (Crime No.5/2015 & Crime No.56/2014). The petitioner and his brother Mr. Alok Kumar Agrawal (Executive Engineer) have been granted bail after four and six years respectively by the Apex Court. At the time of filing of closure report, respondent No.6 was not the SP of ACB, Bilaspur. He further contended that learned Magistrate is still seized with the matter and the petitioner has not made application for supplying of any other documents, which he prayed for before this Court.
6. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, pleadings made in the writ petition, submission of counsel for the respective parties, 6 documents available on record, particularly the fact that the closure report has been filed and the matter is still subjudiced before the learned Magistrate, we do not find any merit in this case to interfere.
7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner is having any grievance with regard to the closure report or non-supply of any documents, he will be at liberty to take recourse to the law before the appropriate forum.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
J.