Chattisgarh High Court
Samirkant Chouhan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 August, 2021
Page 1 of 2
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPCR No. 510 of 2021
Samirkant Chouhan, S/o Shri Jageshwar Ram, Aged About 28 Years, Caste-
Chik, R/o Village- Harradand, Police Station Kunkuri, District- Jashpur (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Home (Police)
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur
(C.G.)
2. The Superintendent of Police, Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.)
3. The Station House Officer, Police Station Kunkuri, District- Jashpur
(C.G.)
4. Pankaj Singh, S/o Late Virendra Singh, R/o D-80, Ghajipur, Police
Station- Ghajipur, Delhi- 110096.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. J.K. Saxena, Advocate.
For State : Mr. Rakesh Sahu, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order On Board
12.08.2021
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for registration of FIR against respondent No. 4
on the basis of complaint made by the petitioner.
2. The brief facts as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner
desirous to purchase an old car, had requested his friend Ganesh
Yadav to arrange old vehicle and on his advice, the petitioner went to
Delhi with him and contacted with respondent No. 4 for providing him
assistance to purchase a second hand car. The petitioner transferred
Rs. 25,000/- on account of respondent No. 4 for purchasing the car.
The consideration amount of car was Rs. 3,60,000/- out of which, he
had paid total Rs. 2,50,000/- and requested for arranging for
remaining amount. Thereafter, the petitioner had paid entire amount
as agreed between the owner of the vehicle.
3. The respondent No. 5 even after receiving the entire amount has
lodged FIR for theft of the car bearing registration No.
UP/80/CD/5015. The respondent No. 4 has obtained the custody of
the car by showing himself as owner of the car. The respondent No. 4
fraudulently snatched the car belongs to the petitioner, therefore, the
petitioner filed complaint on 17.01.2020, but the police has proceeded
the complaint under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. for non-cognizable
offence and advised the petitioner to approach the Court.
4. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the
basis of the complaint, no action has been taken by the police,
therefore, the respondent authorities be kindly directed to register FIR
against respondent No. 4.
5. From perusal of reliefs sought, it is quite clear that the petitioner wants
that on the basis of complaints, FIR should be registered against
respondent No. 4- Pankaj Singh.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & others1, has examined the issue holding that the
petitioner has remedy of filing of complaint before the concerned
Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The
Supreme Court has again considered and decided the issue in
Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage 2 and M.
Subramaniam & another Vs. S. Janaki & another 3.
7. Considering the facts and materials on record and in light of the law
laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the above referred
judgments, the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file
complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. before the court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class having jurisdiction over the place of offence and
in-turn Magistrate will follow the procedure prescribed under the
provisions of the Cr.P.C.
8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
merits of the case whether the complaint discloses any criminal
offence or not.
9. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the
aforesaid liberty granted in favour of the petitioner.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Arun
1 (2008) 2 SCC 409
2 (2016) 6 SCC 277
3 (2020) 16 SCC 728
