Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti vs State Of Chhattisgarh

SHIVENDRA PRATAP SINGH THAKUR @ BANTI .…APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

Mehta, J.

1. Leave granted.

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

1 Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’) and the

charge sheet filed as a consequence of investigation of the said FIR.

3. The pith and substance of the allegations set out in the FIR is

that respondent No. 5-Barkat Ali i.e. the complainant, had

purchased the land bearing Survey No. 559/1Chh/30

admeasuring 21 decimals situated at Ashok Nagar, Khamtarai

Bilaspur from one Geeta Rai, for a consideration of Rs. 25,00,000/.

A registered sale deed for 10 decimals of the said land was executed

on 20th December, 2017. The complainant came into possession of

the said land. The adjacent plot admeasuring 12 decimals, was

purchased by one Sushma Kashyap, wife of Rajkumar Kashyap

from the land owner Geeta Rai in the year 2016. The complainant

and Sushma Kashyap were allegedly in possession of their

respective plots and had raised construction of houses thereupon.

The complainant alleged that he had built a boundary wall for the

protection of his plot with a gate and grill and that he had stored

cement, rods and other construction materials on the plot. It was

alleged that accused Saurabh Pratap Singh Thakur and appellant-

Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti, in furtherance of their

common intention prior to 20th May, 2019, trespassed into the land

in possession of the complainant and demolished the under

2 construction house of Sushma Kashyap and the boundary wall of

the complainant-Barkat Ali. The accused also stole raw materials

kept at the complainant’s land thereby, causing loss of Rs.4 lakhs

and Rs. 6 lakhs to Sushma Kashyap and the complainant,

respectively.

4. The complainant confronted the accused about their criminal

acts, on which the accused threatened the complainant of dire

consequences in presence of witnesses Uma, Shankar Sahu,

Vishnu Sahu and other labourers. On the basis of this report, an

FIR No. 590 of 2019 came to be registered at P.S. Sarkanda,

District Bilaspur for the offences punishable under Sections 447,

427, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Upon conclusion of

investigation, the Investigating Officer, proceeded to file a charge

sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 294,

506 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the accused persons

showing them to be absconding.

5. The co-accused-Saurabh Pratap Singh Thakur and appellant-

Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti initially filed a writ petition

being WPCR No. 10 of 2020 seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR

and the criminal case registered in pursuance thereof. The said

writ petition was, however, not pressed with liberty to take recourse

3 to the appropriate remedy against the charge sheet. Thereafter, the

appellant and co-accused Saurabh Pratap Singh filed a petition

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973(hereinafter being referred to as ‘CrPC’) before the High Court

of Chhattisgarh for quashing of the said FIR and the charge sheet

which stands rejected vide order dated 2nd August, 2023. The said

order is subjected to challenge in this appeal by special leave.

6. Learned counsel representing the appellant urged that the

entire case setup by the complainant in the FIR is false and

fabricated. The land owner Sushma Kashyap whose under

construction house was allegedly demolished/damaged by the

appellant did not approach the police for lodging a complaint

regarding the so called criminal act allegedly committed by the

accused on her property. When the site inspection memo was

prepared, the Investigating Officer did not find any damage to the

boundary wall on Barkat Ali’s plot as had been alleged in the FIR.

It was further contended that the impugned FIR and the charge

sheet filed as a consequence thereof deserve to be quashed because

on a plain reading of the charge sheet, the ingredients of the

offences alleged are not made out.

4

7. Learned counsel urged that the appellant had lodged FIR No.

227 of 2014 against one Satraj Ali who is the panchnama witness

of the complainant and that the present FIR is nothing but a

counterblast to the FIR registered at the instance of the appellant.

8. Learned counsel further submitted that the incident is alleged

to have taken place some time prior to 20th May, 2019 whereas, the

FIR had been lodged on 29th June, 2019 and no explanation has

been furnished for this gross delay in lodging of the FIR. He also

pointed out that the complainant was not even sure of the date on

which the offences were allegedly committed and that is why, the

date of the incident has been mentioned in the FIR and the charge

sheet as some time prior to 20th May, 2019 which clearly indicates

that the allegations made by the complainant are totally vague and

uncertain and unworthy of credence.

9. Learned counsel thus, implored the Court to accept the

appeal and quash the FIR and consequential charge sheet filed

against the appellant.

10. Per contra, learned counsel representing the State of

Chhattisgarh vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions

advanced by the appellant’s counsel. He urged that the

complainant had no motive to falsely implicate the accused-

5 appellant. Investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer

and during the course of the collection of evidence, the statements

of complainant-Barkat Ali, Sushma Kashyap and so also her

husband-Rajkumar Kashyap were recorded wherein, they fully

affirmed the allegations levelled in the FIR.

11. He thus, urged that the appellant herein has failed to make

out a case for interference in the impugned order and the charge

sheet.

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.

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

6 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.

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.

7

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.

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.

8

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.

19. The appeal is allowed in these terms.

20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

.………………………….……….J. (B.R. GAVAI)

………..………………….……….J. (SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)

…………………………………….J. (SANDEEP MEHTA) New Delhi;

May 15, 2024

9