Prabhakar Singh Chandel vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 101 Chatt

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                 Order Sheet
                            W.P.(Cr.) No. 223 of 2021

Prabhakar Singh Chandel, S/o. Shri Ram Hari Singh Chandel, 53 years, R/o.
Near Mandapam Marriage Resort, Infront of Hightech Bust Stand, Raipur
Road, Tifra, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)
                                                                    ---- Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.    State of Chhattisgarh, Through : the Secretary, Home Department,
      Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur
      (C.G.)
2.    The S.H.O., P.S. -Chakarbhata, District - Bilaspur (C.G.).
3.    Santosh Kumar Pandey, S/o. Shri Chandrashekar Pandey, R/o. 51/86,
      Kanhakunj, Chantidih, Near Ramayan Chowk, Nandishwar Main Road,
      Bilaspur (C.G.).
4.    C.G. State Bar Council Bilaspur, through : the Special Committee, C.G.
      State Bar Council, Bilaspur, High Court Campus, Bodri, District -
      Bilaspur (C.G.)
                                                                ---- Respondents

22/04/2021 Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Amrito Das, Additional Govt. Advocate with Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Govt. Advocate for the State/Respondent No.1 and 2.

Mr. Awadh Tripathi, counsel for the respondent No.3.

Mr. T.K. Jha, counsel for the respondent No.4.

Heard on I.A. No. 1, application for grant of ad-interim writ.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been brought praying for quashment of FIR No. 29/2021, registered in P.S. - Chakarbhata, Bilaspur lodged against the petitioner and others.

It is submitted that the petitioner had been the President of Chhattisgarh State Bar Council up till 01.02.2021. It is submitted that on complaint received, that respondent No.3 is still continuing in government service, the petitioner as President suspended the enrollment of the respondent No.3, because of which, the respondent No.3 has grievance against the petitioner. The respondent No.3 has lodged FIR making totally false allegation against this petitioner. Respondent No.3 had been a government servant working as Patwari, who filed application for enrollment making false statement that he is no longer a government servant as he has submitted his resignation. He also filed an affidavit in support of this statement. The content of the FIR show that demand of amount from the complainant was made by the Secretary of the Bar Council and he was the person, who received the amount and continued making further demands. All these activities have occurred after the date, the petitioner ceased to the President of the Bar Council. Relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajanlal & Ors., reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, it is submitted that this case is squarely covered by the guidelines laid down in this case, therefore, the petitioner be granted interim relief by staying the investigation in the FIR mentioned herein- above.

Mr. Amrito Das, Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the investigation in the FIR lodged is at very initial stage. The allegation that have been made by the complainant make out commission of offence that have been registered against this petitioner and others. It is submitted that the ratio that was laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) has been further explained and elaborated by the Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastrucuture Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in 2021 Lawsuit SC - 272 and 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, in which clear principles have been laid down by the Supreme Court as to in what circumstances the interim relief staying the investigation or for passing the orders of no coercive steps, can be passed. It is submitted that in the present case, no such circumstance is present, which can be regarded as sufficient to pass any such order, hence, the application for interim relief be dismissed.

Mr. Awadh Tripathi, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the respondent No.3 has very clearly alleged in the FIR lodged by him against this petitioner and his involvement in making extortion of money from the complainant. Further the complainant has provided the police with recorded audio and video evidence against this petitioner and others, therefore, it is not a case of false implication. The petitioner is not entitled for any interim relief.

Mr. T.K. Jha, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 opposes the submissions made on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner and submits that respondent No.3 had made no suppression of facts, he had clearly stated in his application form that he has submitted his resignation but he does not have any intimation about its acceptance. It was the petitioner, who passed the order for suspension of enrollment of the respondent No.3, it was he, who himself recalled the same on 01.02.2021, the last date of his tenure. Relying on the judgment of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 447 of 2019 (Aman Kumar Singh Vs. State of C.G. & Ors.), decided on 21.05.2020 and also on the judgment of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), it is submitted that allegations against the petitioner are of very serious nature and he does not deserve any interim relief.

In reply, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that there is no direct allegation against the petitioner in the FIR lodged against him and all the events that are alleged to have occurred are subsequent to the date on which the petitioner relinquished the charge of being the President of Bar Council, therefore, he is entitled for grant of interim relief.

Considered on the submissions. The only relief prayed in the interim application is to stay the further proceeding in FIR No.29/2021.

On perusal of the FIR, the name of the petitioner is found mentioned as person for whom the demand was being made by the co-accused Amit Kumar Verma. This allegation needs further investigation. Further looking to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), I am of this view that staying the investigation in this case would not be proper in any respect, therefore, I do not feel inclined to allow the application and grant interim relief to the petitioner.

Accordingly, I.A. No.1, application for grant of ad-interim writ is rejected.

Certified as per rules.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge

balram