Chattisgarh High Court
Ashish Bajpai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 May, 2025
1/5
MANPREET HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
KAUR
Digitally signed
by MANPREET
CRMP No. 1516 of 2025
KAUR
Date: 2025.05.03
12:34:45 +0530 Ashish Bajpai Versus State Of Chhattisgarh
Order Sheet
02.05.2025 Heard Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel
for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned
Deputy Government Advocate for respondents No. 1 /
State.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the lands under agreements with petitioners No. 2 to 4
are owned possessed and belongs with undisputed clear
titles individually by petitioners No. 2 to 4 separately
which were also duly mutated in the land records as
Bhumiswami in the name of petitioners no.2 to 4. The
contention with regard to land under agreement is put
sale up by petitioner No. 1 Ashish Vajpayee is completely
false as is evident from the agreement itself entered
between Mayur Nirmal, Vinod Singh Thakur and Ashish
Bajpai wherein it was clearly mentioned that the said
land is in agreement and the complainants themselves
paid cash a hefty sum of Rs.50,00,000/- to Mrs Rekha
Goel which transaction made on 19/06/2023 to Mr
Surendra Goel spouse of Mrs Rekha Goel with
endorsement on back side of the agreement which was
hide by the complainant. The F.I.R. 0005 /2025 is
registered under influence of complainants for reasons
best known as the dispute was purely contractual. The
matter is absolutely of civil nature of land dispute and no
criminality is evident prima facie on reading of whatever
is mentioned in F.I.R. No 0005 of 2025 and the
agreements. There is no forgery of any documents made
by petitioners nor in any manner petitioners have
defrauded or cheated complainants. Prima facie there
were four different agreements of four different tracts of
lands with four different persons entered by complainants
however all of them were merged by the complainants
for their illegal deeds. The petitioners in the present
crime number have falsely been implicated by the
complainant and all the allegations levelled against the
petitioners are fake, vague and are an afterthought just
to harass petitioners therefore, the said F.I.R. as well as
the proceeding against the petitioners are liable to be set
aside. The registration of the First Information Report
against the petitioners without there being any enquiry or
investigation with regard to the delay and previous
proceedings is totally illegal and arbitrary. From the plain
reading in the FIR and the material brought on record, it
would be clear that the complainant had suppressed the
material facts and has been successful in getting the
offence registered only as an arm twisting method for
settling civil disputes. There are grave contradictions in
the complaint made by the complainants and the reply to
legal notice which clearly shows the dispute to be of civil
nature having no criminality attached. Further, there is a
huge delay of more than one year in lodging of FIR by
the complainant as per their version itself without any
justification then also the same was entertained for
extraneous reasons. Reliance is placed upon the recent
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
matter of Naresh Kumar v. State Of Karnataka,
AIROnline 2024 SC 251, and in the matter of Hridaya
Ranjan Verma & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2000)
4 SCC 168, Prof R.K. Vijayasarathy & Anr. Vs. Sudha
Seetharam & Anr. (2019) SCC Online SC 208. Learned
counsel for the petitioners also submits that the
petitioners have already been enlarged on bail by this
Court.
In view of the above, issue notices to the
respondents No.2 & 3 by ordinary post as well as
registered post.
Learned State counsel appears and accepts notice
on behalf of respondents No.1, therefore, issuance of
notice to it, is dispensed with.
Process Fee be paid within a week only for
respondents No.2 & 3.
Notice be made returnable in four weeks.
Two weeks' time is granted to the learned State
counsel as well as respondents No.2 & 3 to file their
reply-affidavit and thereafter, two weeks' time is granted
to the learned counsel for the petitioners to file rejoinder
affidavit.
List the matter thereafter.
I.A. No. 01/2025 i.e. application for grant of stay
is rejected.
The petitioners are directed to co-operate in the
investigation.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Manpreet
