Appeal against the dismissal order of quashing charge sheet
2. The instant appeal by special leave has been filed by the appellant herein for assailing the order dated 2nd August, 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissing Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1675 of 2023 preferred by the appellant seeking quashment of FIR No. 590 of 2019 registered at the instance of respondent No. 5 at P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian 2 Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’) and the charge sheet filed as a consequence of investigation of the said FIR.
No one appeared for complainant
12. No one has appeared to contest the matter on behalf of respondent No. 5 i.e., complainant-Barkat Ali.
13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material placed on record.
Complainant not sure about the date of incident and the damage
14. A bare perusal of the impugned FIR would reveal that the same was lodged by complainant-Barkat Ali on 29th June, 2019 with the allegation that the offences alleged were committed by the appellant and co-accused some time prior to 20th May, 2019. Thus, the complainant was not even sure of the date on which the alleged offences were committed. No reason whatsoever has been given in the FIR for huge delay of more than 39 days in approaching the police. The Investigating Officer prepared a site plan during the course of investigation which has been made a part of the record. A perusal of the said site plan would reveal that so far as the plot of Purnima Begum, wife of Barkat Ali is concerned, it is fully encumbered by a boundary wall and no damage is shown to this structure. The site plan indicates that there is some damage to the under-construction house of Sushma Kashyap. In the FIR, the damage suffered by the complainant was quantified at Rs. 6 lakhs whereas the damage suffered by Smt. Sushma Kashyap was quantified as Rs. 4 lakhs owing to the demolition of her under construction house. However, admittedly, Smt. Sushma did not lodge any complaint to the police.
No prima facie allegation levelled to make out case under section 294 IPC
15. On going through the contents of the FIR, we do not find any material therein which can justify invocation of the offence punishable under Section 294 IPC. Except for the offence under Section 447 IPC, all the remaining offences are non-cognizable whereas the offence under Section 294 IPC is ex facie not made out from the allegations set out in the FIR and the charge sheet. The allegation levelled by the complainant that the accused demolished the boundary wall constructed on the land in his possession has not been found to be substantiated during spot inspection.
39 days delay in lodging the fir did not indicate the date or time
16. Neither Sushma Kashyap nor her husband-Rajkumar Kashyap lodged any complaint regarding the so-called criminal activity committed by the appellant and the co-accused on their land. The site plan further indicates that the plot of the co-accused Saurabh Pratap Singh Thakur is immediately adjoining the plots of complainant-Barkat Ali and Sushma Kashyap. It is thus, apparent that there is an imminent possibility of animus between the complainant and the accused persons on this count. The FIR which was lodged after 39 days of the incident, does not indicate the date or time, when the accused trespassed into the house of the complainant and caused damage to his property and committed the other offences for which the FIR came to be registered. Therefore, we are of the view that the impugned FIR seems to be nothing but a tool to wreak vengeance against the appellant herein.
Case quashed by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India
17. In this background, we feel that it is a fit case warranting exercise of powers conferred upon this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to quash the proceedings of the criminal case.
18. As a result, impugned FIR No. 590 of 2019 and all subsequent proceedings sought to be taken thereunder are hereby quashed and set aside.
Party
SHIVENDRA PRATAP SINGH THAKUR @ BANTI .…APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S) – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). ______OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No(s). 1400 of 2024) May 15, 2024 [3 judge bench]
