Laxmi Bai Dhritlahre vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 316 Chatt

                                    1

                                                                 NAFR
            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                        Cr.M.P No.1142 of 2020


1. Laxmi Bai Dhritlahre W/o Praveen Kumar Dhritlahre Aged About 43
   Years R/o At Village Thanaud, Satnami Para, Police Station
   Pulgaon, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
2. Praveen Kumar Dhritlahre S/o Late Shri Dhrisht Kumar Aged About
     46 Years R/o At Village Thanaud, Satnami Para, Police Station
     Pulgaon, District Durg Chhattisgarh.          ---- Petitioners


                                Versus


1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Of Police
   Station Utai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
2. Prakash Dewangan S/o Shobha Dewangan Aged About 48 Years
   At Umarpoti, Police Station Utai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
                                                    ---- Respondents

For Petitioners: Shri Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 /State:Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 16.01.2023

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

quashing of FIR in Criminal Case No.6296/2019 pending before the

Court of JMFC, Durg arising out of Crime No.105/19, P.S Utai, District

Durg for the offence under Section 420/34 IPC.

2. Prosecution case in brief is that Petitioner No.1 is the owner of

a piece of land bearing khasra No.604 admeasuring area 0.480

hectares situated at village Patan, Tahsil Patan, District Durg and an

agreement for sale was executed on 28.10.2016 with Respondent

No.2/complainant, who has filed a written complaint before the

Superintendent of Police, Durg that Petitioner No.1 and her husband/

Petitioner No.2 have, in a fraudulent manner, obtained money to the

tune of Rs.14 lacs for such land and thereby refused to execute the

sale deed and also tried to sell the same land to one person namely

Atul Jain, so the complainant had published a public notice giving

information regarding such agreement entered by Petitioner No.1 with

him but in response, Petitioner No.1 had also published a repudiation

notice on 01.04.2018 stating for cancellation of the agreement.

SDO(P), Patan, District Durg after completing enquiry, had issued a

direction to the SHO, Utai for registering the complaint on which

basis, FIR was lodged and after completing the investigation, charge

under Section 420/34 IPC was filed.

3. Shri Mishra submits that Petitioner No.2 was neither a party to

the said sale nor is a witness to the same and further submits that the

complainant had earlier filed a Civil Suit against Petitioner No.1 for

declaration and injunction on the basis of agreement dated

28.10.2016 which was decided against the complainant vide

judgment dated 13.03.2019 in Civil Suit No.16-A/2018 by 1 st

Additional District Judge to the Court of 1 st Additional Judge, Durg

and further submits that the entire dispute was completely of civil

nature and there is no dishonest inducement by the Petitioner. He

lastly submits that even if the entire charge sheet is accepted at its

face value, no prima facie case for the offence under Section 420 IPC

is made out against the Petitioner.

4. On the other hand, Shri Bajpai opposed the contention of Shri

Mishra.

5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the

documents annexed herewith carefully.

6. It is well settled that the Court should carefully examine the

facts before it for the reason that a frustrated litigant who failed to

succeed before the Civil Court may initiate criminal proceedings just

to harass the other side with mala fide intentions or the ulterior motive

of wreaking vengeance on the other party. Chagrined and frustrated

litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustrations by

cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal Court. The Court

proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon

of harassment and persecution. In this regard, several judgments

were rendered in the matters of Chandrapal Singh and others vs.

Maharaj Singh and another reported in AIR 1982 SC 1238, State of

Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992

Supp (1) SCC 335 Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and

Others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531 and G. Sagar Suri and

Another vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in AIR 2000 SC 754 to

quash the criminal proceeding.

7. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, here, it is

evident that there is no element of criminal nature and the matter is

purely of civil nature. Moreover, the allegation made in the FIR and

the statement did not disclose the commission of any offence as

registered under Section 420 IPC against the Petitioners, which

amounts to abuse of the process of law.

8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that

the Petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Accordingly,

Criminal Case No.6296/2019 pending before the Court of JMFC,

Durg is hereby quashed.

9. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court for

necessary compliance.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priya