Nishant Iqbal vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2512 Chatt

                                       1

                                                                          NAFR

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                             WA No. 191 of 2022

1.   Nishant Iqbal S/o Yunus Iqbal Aged About 29 Years R/o Plot No.22,
     Street No. 14-A, Pragati Nagar, Rishali, Bhilai Durg, District Durg,
     Chhattisgarh.
2.   Yunus Iqbal S/o Shri Abdul Manan Qureshi Aged About 67 Years R/o
     Plot No.22, Street No. 14-A, Pragati Nagar, Rishali, Bhilai Durg, District
     Durg, Chhattisgarh.
3.   Smt. Nashid Qureshi W/o Yunus Iqbal Aged About 65 Years R/o Plot
     No.22, Street No. 14-A, Pragati Nagar, Rishali, Bhilai Durg, District
     Durg, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                  ---- Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.   State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department
     Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur,
     Chhattisgarh.
2.   Superintendent of Police District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
3.   Town Inspector Thana Nevai, Bhilai Durg, Chhattisgarh.
4.   Nand Kishore Nilmarkar S/o Girdhar Nilmalkar, Aged About 23 Years R/
     o Achanakpur, Utai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
                                                             ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioners : Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate.

For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Ms. Meena Shastri, Additional Advocate General.

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, Judge Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

19.04.2022

Heard Mr. T.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard

Ms. Meena Shastri, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for

respondents No. 1 to 3.

2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 22.03.2022

passed by the learned Single Judge in WPCR No.296 of 2022, whereby, the

learned Single Judge declined the prayer made by the petitioners therein to

quash the FIR No. 0071 of 2022 under Sections 294, 323, 506 & 34 IPC.

3. At the very outset, Mr. Tiwari submits that in the memo of appeal at

paragraph 1 under the heading of "facts of case", inadvertently, it is stated

that appellant No. 2 is a retired Principal and that appellant No. 3 is a

practicing advocate and is in bed rest due to paralytic attack. He submits

that, in fact, the appellant No. 2 is a practicing advocate and he is in bed rest

due to paralytic attack and that the appellant No.3 is a retired Principal.

4. It appears that the appellant No.1 herein had lodged a First Information

Report, for short, 'FIR', against the respondent No.4 on 23.02.2022 at Police

Station, Nevai, and the same was registered as FIR No.0068/2022 under

Sections 294, 323, 506 and 34 IPC. Subsequently, the respondent No.4 filed

an FIR dated 24.02.2022 which is registered as FIR No. 0071/2022 in the

very same police station under Sections 294, 323, 34 and 506 IPC.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the FIR filed by the

respondent No. 4, was filed as a counter-blast. It is also submitted that the

appellant No.2, because of a paralytic attack, cannot move freely and has to

take support of walker.

6. The learned Single Judge observed that the authenticity of the FIR

cannot be judged at this stage and it is not a fit case for quashing the FIR.

7. Merely because FIR No. 0071 of 2022 was subsequently lodged by

respondent No.4, it cannot be said that the same is a counter-blast.

8. We see no good ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single

Judge and, accordingly, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

                     Sd/-                                     Sd/-
           (Arup Kumar Goswami)                 (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
                Chief Justice                                Judge



Hem