Chattisgarh High Court
Ugrasen Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 January, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:1491
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 91 of 2025
1 - Ugrasen Verma S/o Gokul Prasad Verma Aged About 34 Years R/o Village
Chandi, Police Station Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh
2 - Krishna Kumar Verma S/o Late Bhojram Verma Aged About 50 Years R/o
Village Piprahi, Police Station Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Santram Sahu S/o Late Khedu Ram Sahu Aged About 76 Years R/o
Village Chandi, Police Station Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh
4 - Dhaneshwari Sahu W/o Narsingh Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village
Chandi, Police Station Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh
5 - Sohan Lal Verma S/o Hanumant Lal Verma Aged About 41 Years R/o
Village Chandi, Police Station Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh
6 - Banshilal Sahu S/o Sukhiram Sahu Aged About 70 Years R/o Village
Nayapara, Police Station Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh
7 - Tekram Nishad S/o Birju Nishad Aged About 60 Years R/o Village
Nayapara, Police Station Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara,
NARESH Digitally
by NARESH
signed Chhattisgarh
KUMAR KUMAR KAMDE
Date: 2025.01.22
KAMDE 17:10:14 +0530
2
8 - Smt. Mantorabai Pal W/o Gannu Pal Aged About 60 Years R/o Village
Nayapara, Police Station Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh
9 - Mukesh Kumar Sahu S/o Banshilal Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village
Semradih, Police Station Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh
10 - Mukesh Kumar Verma S/o Bhojram Verma Aged About 35 Years R/o
Village Piprahi, Police Station Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh
11 - Sewaram Dhurandhar S/o Lilu Ram Dhurandhar Aged About 72 Years
R/o Village Semradih, Police Station Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh
12 - Pitambar Verma S/o Ghanshyam Verma Aged About 30 Years R/o
Village Chandi, Police Station Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station
Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh
2 - Banwari Lal Kushwah @ B. L. Kushwah S/o Madho Singh Kushwah Aged
About 39 Years R/o Village Jamalpur, Police Station Kaulari, District
Dhaulpur, Rajasthan
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Siddharth Pandey, Advocate.
For the State : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
Order on Board
09/01/2025
1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. The petitioners have preferred the present petition praying for expedite
trial of Criminal Case No. 387/2021 pending before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) and conclude it within
stipulated time frame.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioners including Ugrasen
Verma and others deposited the money in two companies, Garima Real
Estate & Allied Limited and Garima Homes and Farm Houses Limited.
The companies, represented by their directors, induced the Petitioners
and other investors to invest with the promise of doubling their invested
amounts. The Petitioners and other investors were misled by the
Directors of Garima Real Estate & Allied Limited and Garima Homes
and Farm Houses Limited, who promised to double the invested
amounts. However, after collecting substantial sums, the Directors
absconded, leading to a complaint being lodged with the local police.
The investigation revealed that the companies were involved in
fraudulent activities, having defrauded investors of a total sum of Rs.
1,22,48,871/-.
4. First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 15.03.2018 by Petitioner
No.3/Santram Sahu at Police Station Suhela, District Balodabazar, CG.
stating that he invested Rs. 5 lakhs on 22.06.2013 in Garima Real
Estate Company and Rs. 5 lakhs in Garima Company Raipur through
the company's agent in Village Sarkipar. The other two investors
Dhaneshwari Sahu invested Rs. 5 lakhs and Dayalram Sahu invested
Rs. 3 lakhs in Garima Chit Fund Company with the assurance of
double the invested amount. However, despite the completion of the
maturity period, the amount was not refunded. Thus, the FIR was
registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC
against the directors of Garima Real Estate Chit Fund Company. The
investigation revealed that the directors had absconded with the
investors' money, making it a case of criminal breach of trust, cheating,
and fraudulent misrepresentation.
5. During the course of the investigation, several incriminating documents
were seized and statements were recorded, confirming that the
Directors of the two companies misappropriated large sums of money
from the Petitioners and other investors. Based on the evidence, a
charge sheet was filed by the Police on 25.02.2020 against the
accused/respondent No. 2 under Sections 420 read with 34 of IPC,
Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes
(Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 10 of Chhattisgarh Protection of
Depositors Interest Act, 2005.
6. After the filing of the charge sheet, the case was registered as
Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2020 'State of Chhattisgarh vs. Banwari Lal' on
28.02.2020. Thereafter, on 07.03.2020, 20.03.2020, 26.11.2020.
17.12.2020, 22.01.2021, and 27.01.2021 the case was adjourned for
one or the other reasons. On 11.02.2021, the learned Sessions Judge
Balodabazar, CG. discharged the accused/respondent No. 2 for the
offence punishable under Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of
Depositors Interest Act, 2005 and directed that the matter be placed
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Balodabazar, CG.
7. On 12.02.2021, the matter was placed before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Balodabazar, CG. and Criminal Case No. 387/2021 was
registered. On 23.02.2021, 08.03.2021, 23.03.2021, 05.04.2021, and
05.07.2021, the matter was adjourned due to the non-appearance of
the accused/respondent No. 2 since it was fixed for arguments before
charge. On 19.07.2021, the application under Section 437 of the
Cr.P.C. filed by the accused/respondent No. 2 was rejected. On
30.07.2021, 16.08.2021, 28.08.2021, 06.09.2021, 20.09.2021,
05.10.2021, 20.10.2021, 29.10.2021, 11.11.2021, 29.11.2021,
13.12.2021, 24.12.2021, 12.01.2022, 07.03.2022, 26.03.2022,
11.04.2022, 26.04.2022, 11.05.2022, and 24.05.2022 the case was
adjourned since the presence of the accused/respondent No. 2 could
not be secured as he was locked up in Central Jail Bharatpur,
Rajasthan. The Court repeatedly instructed the authorities to ensure
the presence of the accused from Central Jail Bharatpur, Rajasthan but
the matter continued to be delayed.
8. On 07.06.2022, 21.06.2022, 04.07.2022, 18.07.2022, 25.07.2022,
12.08.2022, 15.09.2022, 11.10.2022, 21.10.2022, 03.11.2022,
16.11.2022. 26.11.2022, 08.12.2022, 20.12.2022, 01.01.2023,
12.01.2023, 27.01.2023, 10.02.2023, 27.02.2023, 14.03.2023,
29.03.2023, 13.04.2023, 24.04.2023, 12.07.2023, 26.07.2023,
09.08.2023, 24.08.2023, 08.09.2023, 25.09.2023, 10.10.2023,
16.10.2023, 20.10.2023, 09.11.2023, 08.12.2023, 23.12.2023,
08.01.2024, 24.01.2024, 08.02.2024, 21.02.2024, 06.03.2024,
22.03.2024, 06.04.2024, 10.05.2024, 23.05.2024, 27.06.2024,
26.09.2024, 11.11.2024, and 28.10.2024 the presence of the accused
could not be secured nor could he be produced through video
conferencing facility as he was detained in Central Jail Bharatpur,
Rajasthan. Despite the clear order passed by the learned trial Court,
the matter remained pending for arguments before charge indicating
the ongoing issues with securing the accused's appearance and the
lack of progress in framing charges.
9. Vide order dated 08.12.2022 passed in M.Cr.C No. 9387/2022
Banwarilal Kushwaha vs. State of CG. by this Hon'ble Court, the
accused/respondent No. 2 was released on bail.
10. Thereafter, on 25.11.2024 bail bonds were furnished by the
accused/respondent No. 2 in pursuance of the order dated 08.12.2022
passed in M.Cr.C No. 9387/2022 Banwarilal Kushwaha vs. State of
CG.' by this Hon'ble Court. On 28.11.2024, an application for the
issuance of production warrant for the production of the
accused/respondent No. 2 was issued by the learned trial Court since
the accused/respondent No. 2 was detained in Central Jail Bharatpur,
Rajasthan and the matter was fixed for 20.12.2024. The learned trial
Court scheduled the case for pre-charge arguments, but charges were
still not framed, and no meaningful progress was made in the trial.
11. Despite the charge sheet being filed and the existence of substantial
evidence, the case has been stuck at the stage of framing of charge.
The learned trial Court has not framed charges against the accused,
citing multiple adjournments and the non-appearance of the accused,
which has caused undue delay in the case's progress. Due to the
absence of the accused and the non-presentation of a warrant, the
charge framing was delayed.
12. The matter remains unresolved, and the next date for pre-charge
arguments is scheduled for 09th January 2025. Despite several years
passing since the filing of the charge sheet and numerous
adjournments, no charges have been framed, and the trial remains
stuck in the pre-charge phase due to the absence of the accused and
the continuous delays in court proceedings further delaying the justice
process.
13. The Petitioners have suffered undue hardship due to the delay in trial,
and their fundamental right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article
21 of the Constitution of India, has been violated. The prolonged delay
and adjournments have severely affected the ability of the Petitioners
to secure justice.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the right to speedy trial
has been read into Article 21 of the Constitution of India by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in numerous judgments. Despite several orders for the
production of the accused/respondent No. 2 passed by the learned trial
Court, the presence of the accused could not be secured which shows
the failure of justice. Charge framing proceedings has been unduly
delayed due to the absence of the accused. The trial has been stalled
for over three years, and ne substantial progress has been made
despite the charge sheet having been filed on 25.02.2020. Some of the
petitioners are aged about 70 years or more and the delay in the
conclusion of trial would render the entire exercise futile. Further, the
money of the investors' would go into vain with the accused persons
enjoying the fruits of the investors' hard earned money.
15. Learned State counsel has opposes the prayer made by counsel for
the petitioners.
16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly
the fact that the charges have not been framed against the accused
and also considering the limited prayer of the petitioners, the present
CRMP is disposed of with a direction the trial Court to expedite the trial
expeditiously as far as possible.
18. Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
JUDGE
Kamde
