Avinash Kumar Chandravanshi vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1128 Chatt

                                   1

                                                             NAFR
          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                       Cr.M.P No.1691 of 2022


Avinash Kumar Chandravanshi S/o Shri Sewa Ram Chandravanshi
Aged About 47 Years R/o B - 01, Kuber Apartment, Shanker Nagar,
P.S. Khamardih, Opposite Aarogya Hospital Raipur, Chhattisgarh
                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus


1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Home Department,
   Mahanadi Bhavan Mantralay Capital Complex Naya Raipur,
   Chhattisgarh
2. District Magistrate District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Station House Officer Police Station - Azad Chowk, District :
   Raipur, Chhattisgarh                        ----Respondents

For Petitioner: Shri Palash Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent/State: Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, G.A

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 22.02.2023

1. This Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for

quashing FIR No. 144/2017 dated 07.07.2017 registered at P.S Azad

Chowk, Raipur and the charge sheet dated 19.06.2022 bearing

No.282-A/2019, which was filed against the Petitioner under Section

420 IPC, under Sections 4 & 5 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation

Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 as also under Sections 7 & 10 of

Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Act, 2005.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant Babulal Sahu,

along with other investors, had invested money in the Company

namely Gurukripa Infra Reality India Limited as the Directors of the

said Company have allured them for doubling the money invested

and thereafter, closed the said Company based upon which, FIR was

registered on 07.07.2017 and after completion of investigation,

charge sheet has also been filed before the Sessions Court, Raipur.

3. Shri Tiwari, learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that as

per the FIR, the incident took place from 17.09.2013 to 31.07.2015

and the present Petitioner has joined the Directorship of the said

Company on 20.07.2009 and has resigned on 01.08.2010 as per the

information he gathered from the web site of 'Registrar of the

Companies, Ministry of Corporate Affairs'. He further submits that the

present Applicant never involved in the alleged offence but without

any iota of evidence, charge sheet was filed against him, therefore,

continuation of criminal proceedings against him amounts to abuse of

process of law. He placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the

matter of Puja Ravinder Dasani vs. State of Maharashtra reported in

(2014) 16 SCC 1 and the relevant para-28 reads as under:-

"28. In the entire complaint, neither the role of the appellant in the affairs of the Company was explained nor in what manner the appellant is responsible for the conduct of business of the Company, was explained. From the record it appears that the trade finance facility was extended by the Respondent 2 to the default Company during the period from 13-4-2008 to 14-10-2008, against which the Cheques were issued by the Company which stood dishonoured. Much before that on 17-12-2005 the appellant resigned from the Board of Directors. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act is

a pure abuse of process of law and it has to be interdicted at the threshold."

He further submits that the same view was reiterated by the

High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Nilesh Ajmera vs.

State of M.P decided on 29.05.2020 in Misc. Criminal Case

No.10389/2017 and prays to quash the FIR and the consequent

criminal proceedings against the Petitioner.

4. Per contra, Shri Bajpai, learned State Counsel opposed the

prayer. However, he fairly submits that except the evidence that the

present Petitioner is a former Director of the said Company, no other

incriminating evidence is available against the Petitioner.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents annexed herewith with utmost circumspection.

6. Having considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the

parties and particularly considering the ratio laid down in the matters

of Puja Ravinder Dasani vs. State of Maharashtra and Nilesh Ajmera

vs. State of M.P (supra), after examining the facts involved in the

present case as the Petitioner has already resigned way back in the

year 2010 and the complaint made pertains to the period

commencing from 17.09.2013 to 31.07.2015, therefore, this Court is

of the view that prosecution cannot be permitted against the

Petitioner merely because he was the former Director of the

Company at some point of time.

7. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings filed against the Petitioner

arising out of FIR No.144/2017 dated 07.07.2017 registered at P.S

Azad Chowk, Raipur and the charge sheet dated 19.06.2022 bearing

No.282-A/2019 are hereby quashed.

8. Resultantly, the Petition is allowed.

9. A copy of this order be sent to the Sessions Court, Raipur for

necessary compliance.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priya