Prem Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1356 Chatt

                                                             Page 1 of 5

                                                                 NAFR
           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                       WPCR No. 111 of 2021

                 Order Reserved on : 07.07.2021

                 Order Delivered on : 26.07.2021

Prem Singh, S/o Rajendra Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Near
Shiv Mandir, Kumhari, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.)
                                                        ---- Petitioner
                              Versus
1.    State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector Durg (C.G.)
2.    Station House Officer, Kumhari, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.)
3.    G.P. Pathak, Sub Inspector, Police Station- Kumhari, District-
      Durg (C.G.)
4.    Ankit Chakrawarti, S/o Ajay Chakrawarti, Aged About 29
      Years, R/o 50/1, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, Police Station- Supela,
      District- Durg (C.G.)
                                                   ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate.

For State/Res. 1 & 2 : Mr. Uddhav Sharma, Govt. Adv. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Suryakant Mishra, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV Order

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging legality and validity of FIR No. 22 dated 19.01.2020 registered at Police Station- Kumhari District- Durg (C.G.) against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 384 of I.P.C.

2. The brief facts as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were well known to each other and they had good relations. On 30.09.2019, the complainant had taken loan from the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- and also executed an agreement regarding repayment of aforesaid loan. The petitioner demanded back his money, but the complainant was not in a position to repay

the amount as such, the complainant made false story and filed a false complaint at Police Station- Kumhari, District- Durg. Hence, this writ petition is filed to quash the FIR registered against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that contents of FIR reflect that the FIR is lodged against unknown person. On 30.12.2019, a traffic police in name of parking the motor cycle in wrong side, has taken a sum of Rs. 4,000/- from the complainant through Google Pay on mid night. The mobile number, which has been mentioned, is mobile number of the petitioner. He would further submit that police of Police Station- Kumhari is harassing the petitioner to arrest him in the matter and witness to the agreement has also mentioned that the complainant has taken loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the petitioner and has developed false story. He would further submit that the FIR has been lodged after lapse of 19 days. He has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & others1, wherein it has been held that the preliminary enqiury especially in commercial cases is mandatory and that too when there is no satisfactory explanation for lodging delayed FIR. Neither preliminary enquiry has been done nor explanation in delay of registration of FIR has been given, therefore, the FIR, prima facie, abuse of process of law, which is liable to be quashed.

4. He would also rely upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal2. He would also submit that there was commercial relation between the petitioner and respondent No. 4, but to create pressure upon the petitioner, the false FIR has been lodged against the petitioner. It is prayed that the FIR registered against the petitioner may kindly be quashed and preliminary enquiry may also be conducted in the matter.

1    (2014) 2 SCC 1
2    AIR 1992 SC 604

5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 would submit that the complainant is working as Sales Manager in Tata Capital Housing Finance, Raipur. On 30.12.2019 at about 11:30 p.m., respondent No. 4 went to Dhaba situated near Kumhari Toll Naka and after taking food, respondent No. 4 came near his motorcycle, where the petitioner was standing and by personating himself as Traffic Police, demanded Rs. 8,000/- from respondent No. 4 by saying that he has illegally parked his motorcycle in wrong side. On the said demand, respondent No. 4 transferred the amount of Rs. 4,000/- by Google Pay and thereafter, the petitioner taking mobile phone of respondent No. 4 threatened to implicate him in any grievous offence. The respondent No. 4 made a written complaint before Police Station- Kumhari and the offence punishable under Section 384 of I.P.C. has been registered against the petitioner. He would further submit that the FIR against the petitioner for committing offence under Section 384 of I.P.C. has rightly been registered against the petitioner, hence, this writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be dismissed.

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that there is no illegality or irregularity in registration of FIR against the petitioner for committing offence under Section 384 of I.P.C., hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner for quashing the FIR, may kindly be dismissed.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition with utmost satisfaction.

8. For examining the issue raised in the petition, it is required to extract contents of FIR, which are as under:-

"----------fd eSa vafdr pdzorhZ firk vt; pdzorhZ mez 29 o"kZ irk [email protected] usg: uxj if'pe fHkykbZ Fkkuk lqisyk ftyk nqxZ dk fuoklh gwaA eSa VkVk dSfiVy gkmflax Qk;usal jk;iqj esa lsYl eSustj ds in ij dk;Zjr gwa izfrfnu dh Hkkafr eSa fnukad 30-12- 2019 dh jkr jk;iqj vkfQl ls ?kj fHkykbZ tk jgk FkkA dqEgkjh Vksy ukdk ds ikl <kcs ds lkeus viuh eksVj lk;dy [kM+h dj [kkuk [kkdj okil vk;k esjs eksVj lk;dy ds ikl ,d O;fDr [kM+k Fkk cksyk rqe eksVj lk;dy jksM ij xyr [kM+h fd;s gks eSa

VªSfQd okyk gwaA rqEgs cM+s ekeys esa Qalk nwaxk dgrs gq;s /kedh fn;k vkSj cksyk rqe cpuk pkgrs gks rks pyku dk 8]000 :i;s iVk nks eSa cksyk iSlk esjs ikl ugh gSA rc og cksyk xqxy is djks eSus 4]000 :i;s xqxy is fd;k rc iqu% /kedh fn;k fd eSa VªSfQd iqfyl okyk gwaA iSlk ugh gS] rks viuk eksckbZy Qksu nks vkSj esjs eksckbZy eq>s /kedh nsdj Mjk dj ys fy;kA esjk eksckbZy ou Iyl daiuh dk 7 eMy gSA ftldk fle ua- 7045514607 ftldk vkbZ-,e-bZ-vkbZ-ua- 869430048879711 ,oa vkbZ-,e-bZ-vkbZ-ua- 869430048879703 gS vkSj cksyk iqfyl esa fjiksVZ er djuk fdlh dks er crkuk eSa VªSfQd iqfyl okyk gwa esjk dqN ugh gksxk eSa Mj ds dkj.k fdlh dks ugh crk;k fQj vius nksLr dks dbZ fnu ckn crk;k vkSj mlds fgEer fnykus ij fjiksVZ fy[kkus Fkkus vk;k gwaA fjiksVZ fy[kdj mfpr dk;Zokgh djus dk d"V djsa------------"

9. From perusal of FIR, it is quite vivid that respondent No. 4 has given explanation with regard to delay in lodging the FIR. He said that he was under pressure, but after getting encourage, he has lodged present FIR. The explanation given by him is rebuttable during course of trial. This cannot be examined at this juncture while hearing the Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So far as contention of learned counsel for the petitioner as per judgment of Lalita Kumari (Supra) is concerned, the preliminary enquiry should be conducted in respect of offence relating to commercial transaction. This is not the case here. The petitioner has been charged for the offence punishable under Section 384 of the I.P.C., which is extracted below:-

"384. Punishment for extortion.--Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

10. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari (Supra) held as under:-

"120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:

(a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes

(b) Commercial offences

(c) Medical negligence cases

(d) Corruption cases

(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.

The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.

11. From perusal of the judgment, it is quite vivid that whether preliminary enquiry is to be conducted or not, it is depended upon on the facts and circumstances of each case and in this case, there are no such facts requiring the investigating authority to conduct preliminary enquiry, therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in registration of FIR, as such, the present writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

12. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on merits of this case and facts have been considered for adjudication of the present petition. The prosecution is directed to proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court while deciding this writ petition.

13. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

Arun