1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 496 of 2018
Hemant Kathle S/o Shri Dharam Das Kathle, aged about 36
Years R/o Guna, Temri, P.S. Mungeli, District Mungeli
Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police
Station Jarhagaon, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh, District :
Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
2. Annu Prajapati S/o Shri Chhote Lal Prajapati, aged about 30
years, R/o Village Padampur, Police Station- Jarhagaon, District
Mungeli Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause title is taken from CIS Software)
For Petitioner : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate
For Res. No.1/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer.
For Res. No.2 : Mr. Mirza Hafiz Baig, Advocate.
Division Bench:
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Smt. Rajani Dubey, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
30.04.2024
1. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing Crime No. 212 of 2017 dated
24.09.2017 and quash final report dated 12.11.2017 and also
quash the criminal proceedings pending before CJM, Mungeli as
criminal case No. 1649/2017.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 has lodged the
written complaint against the petitioner at police Station-
2
Jarhagaon, District- Mungeli (C.G.) alleging therein that she is
the resident of Village- Padampur and engaged in making soil
pottery and soil bricks. It was alleged that the applicant
purchased 84,000 bricks from her for construction of toilet and
for the payment of the said bricks, an amount of Rs. 70,000/- in
cash was given to her and for balance amount, a cheque
amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- was given by the applicant in the
name of her father deposited the said cheque in his Bank
account in Punjab National Bank, Branch- Barela, then he was
reported by the bank that the said cheque is dishonored on
account of insufficient balance in the account of the cheque
issuing person and thereafter, she demanded her amount of Rs.
1,50,000/- but, the petitioner did not give the said amount to her
and refused the payment of the said amount to her and thus, the
petitioner has committed cheating with the
complainant/respondent No.2. Thereafter, FIR has been
registered by the police and after the investigation in the matter
and arrested him by the police for offence under Section 420,
506 of IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it is the case of
simply dishonour of cheque whereas the proceedings under
Section 420, 506 of IPC have been initiated against the
petitioner in pursuance to the FIR. Hence, the offence under
Section 420, 506 of IPC is liable to be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned counsel for
the State have opposed the prayer for quashing of charge-sheet
and further submitted that no interim order was passed in the
3
present case and the trial is in progress.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal
proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a
complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly
and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily
interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However,
where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if
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, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in
exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
7. In the well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605
State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, the Apex
Court held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly
and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Guidelines are as
follows:
“(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 to 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
4
156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 156(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 every
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."
8. In case of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill; reported in (1995)
SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi;
reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals &
5
Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors; reported in 2000
SCC (Cri) 615, the Apex Court clearly held that if a prima facie
case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court
should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the
allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear
to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate
to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that
while considering such petitions the Courts should be very
circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no
controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie
case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence
thereof cannot be quashed.
9. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra
and others : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Apex Court has
observed that the power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While
examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the
Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or
otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of
wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court
has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash
the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not
the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable
offence and is not required to consider the case on merit.
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid law and considering the
6
submissions by the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the
considered view it would not be proper to interfere in the present
petition for quashing of proceedings.
11. As per respondent No. 2 and learned counsel for the State
charge-sheet has been filed and trial is in progress against the
petitioner and also in view of material on record, it can not be
held that the impugned criminal proceedings are manifestly
attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
to spite them due to private and personal grudge. FIR or criminal
proceedings can be quashed only in accordance with
parameters laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of
decisions.
12. In view of aforesaid, the petition lacks merit and thus, liable to be
dismissed.
13. The CRMP is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) (Ramesh Sinha)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Amit Patel