Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 338 Chatt

                              1

                                                        NAFR


        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                   CRMP No.119 of 2023

  1. Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu, S/o. Shri Banshi Lal Sahu, aged
     about 40 years,

  2. Smt.Sunita Sahu, W/o. Shri Bhuneshwar Sahu, aged about
     now 35 years,
     Both R/o. House No.84 Karainara, Police Station Urga,
     District Korba (CG) Both Presently at Bamhanidih, Police
     Station Bamhanidih, Tehsil-Champa, District Janjgir-
     Champa (CG)

                                                ---- Applicants

                            Versus

  1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer,
     Police Station Kotwali, Korba, District Korba (CG)
  2. Smt.Shraddha Sahu @ Bhoomi W/o. Shri Chhabilal Sahu,
     aged about 25 years, R/o. Quarter No.H-28 I.T.I. Colony,
     Rampur, Police Outpost-Rampur, Police Station-Kotwali,
     District-Korba (CG) At Present - M.Q.-155, Shakti Nagar,
     Geora Project, Police Station-Dipka, District Korba (CG)

                                             ---- Respondents

For Applicants Mr.Lavkush Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State Mr.Vimlesh Bajpai, Govt.Advocate

SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

Order On Board

17/1/2023

1. The applicants have preferred this petition under Section

482 of the CrPC for quashment of FIR in Crime

No.479/2022 dated 24.5.2022 registered at Police Station

Kotwali, Korba and subsequent proceedings in Criminal

Case No.2927/2022 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Korba for offence under Section 498-A/34 of

the IPC.

2. Mr.Lavkush Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the applicants,

would submit that applicant No.1 is brother-in-law (Jeth)

and applicant No.2 is sister-in-law (Jethani) of

complainant / respondent No.2-Smt.Shraddha Sahu @

Bhoomi, whose marriage was solemnized with Chhabilal

Sahu in the month of July, 2021. He would further submit

that vague and bald allegations have been made by the

complainant in the FIR. The present petitioners are not

living in Karainara, Police Station Urga, District Korba

where the parents and brother of petitioner No.1 are living

because of Government service of petitioner No.1 since

2012. Petitioner No.1 was appointed on the post of

Assistant Development Extension Officer and thereafter

posted at Kota, District Bilaspur since 2012. As such, the

petitioners were living separately from her parents and

husband of the complainant. So, complaint made against

the petitioners is false, mala fide and concocted and false

allegation for demand of car and other articles has been

made against the petitioners. He placed reliance on the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of

Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar

and others1. So, the learned counsel prays to allow the

instant petition and quash the FIR in respect of the

petitioners.

3. Per contra, Mr.Vimlesh Bajpai, learned Government

Advocate for respondent No.1, would submit that in the

present case, specific role of the present applicants has

been mentioned in the FIR. He would further submit that

the facts of the case of Kahkashan Kaushar @ Sonam

(supra) are distinguishable as in the said case, earlier the

complaint was filed in the year 2017 though cognizance

was taken only against the husband and the said matter

was later on resolved. In subsequent complaint, which was

filed in the year 2019, the complainant / wife roped other

family members. So, in subsequent complaint, the Court

finds that only omnibus allegation of demand of car was

made and no specific allegation was found, in such

circumstance, relief was granted. He further submits that

there is no merit in this case and and it is liable to be

dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered

their rival submissions made hereinabove and also perused

the documents annexed with petition.

5. It is well settled that power under Section 482 of the CrPC

1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162

as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of

State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others 2

should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection

and that too in the rarest of rare cases. It should be

exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any

court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In this

case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the

following seven categories wherein such power should be

exercised :

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever 2 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

6. Considering the role attributed by the present petitioners

as there are specific allegations against the present

applicants that they are harassing the complainant by

abusing filthy language and also in several other manners,

this Court is of the view that it is not a case where inherent

powers under Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised

for quashment of FIR registered against the applicants.

7. Accordingly, the petition being bereft of any merit is liable

to be and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

B/-