Chattisgarh High Court
Vinay Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 January, 2023
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRMP No.196 of 2023
Vinay Tiwari Versus State of Chhattisgarh and another
27.01.2023 Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava,
Advocate & Mr. M.L. Sakat, Advocate for the petitioner/s.
Ms. Seema Dixit, Panel Lawyer for the State.
Heard.
Learned State counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent
No.1 therefore, no formal steps are required.
Issue notice to respondent No.2 on merits as well as on I.A.No.1/
application for grant of stay
P.F. be paid within four weeks.
Learned counsel for the State prays for and is granted four weeks
time to file reply.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondent
No.2/complainant is a retired Bank Manager. He has lodged FIR
No.785/2022 on 28.09.2022 at Police Station Kota District Bilaspur
against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 of
IPC. His allegation is that the present petitioner allured him during the
year 2017-2021 to double the money. He further averred that he was
well aware of the fact that the petitioner has invested the said money
into a different projects of Government Contracts, because of which, he
earned huge profit. Therefore, upon such assurance, he has given the
money after obtaining loan from Anjana Choukse, Suresh Devai and
Ravi Namdeo to the tune of Rs.1,72,00,000/- (One crore and Seventy
Two Lacs) and when he demanded to return the money, then he
threatened to kill him and the complainant has also filed an agreement
on 29.09.2021 in the stamp paper of Rs.50/- in which, he only
mentioned the fact that the present petitioner has to return the money
within a period of two weeks and there is no averment made that the
amount paid will be returned in double. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that the petitioner is a Government Employee
and working in the Forest Department as a Forester and only to recover
the amount and there is a money dispute, a false case has been
registered. He further submits that no case of cheating is made out by
the complainant and continuance of criminal proceeding clearly amounts
to abuse of process of law. He would further submit that in the catena of
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prof. R.K.
Vijayasarathy and another Vs. Sudha Seetharam and another ,
(2019) 16 SCC 739, it has been categorically held thus:
"28.The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has to be exercised with care. In the exercise of its
jurisdiction, a High Court can examine whether a matter which is
essentially of a civil nature has been given a cloak of a criminal offence.
Where the ingredients required to constitute a criminal offence are not
made out from a bare reading of the complaint, the continuation of the
criminal proceeding will constitute an abuse of the process of the court.
Having considered the aforesaid fact, purely as an interim
measure, this Court only observes that the investigating officer shall
strictly follow the principle laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs.
State of Bihar, 2014 (8) SCC 273, in which, it was emphasized that
no arrest should be made only because the offence is non-bailable and
cognizable and further in view of the observation of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and another, (2022) 1 SCC 676, it is made clear that after completing
the investigation, there shall be no obligation on the officer In-charge to
arrest each and every accused at the time of filing of the charge-sheet.
Learned counsel for the State is directed to inform the aforesaid
observation to the concerned Investigating Officer for its compliance.
The matter be listed after completion of service.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
JUDGE
Rekha
