IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Police should exercise heightened caution when drawn into dispute pertaining to such unethical transactions between private parties which appear to be prima facie contentious in light of previous inquiries or investigations – Need for vigilance on part of police is paramount and a discerning eye should be cast upon cases where unscrupulous conduct appears to eclipse pursuit of justice.
(2) Such criminal prosecution should not be allowed to continue where object to lodge FIR is not for criminal prosecution and for punishing offender for offence committed but for recovery of money under coercion and pressure.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. As a law enforcement agency, the police force shoulders the vital responsibility of preserving public order, guarding social harmony, and upholding the foundations of justice. However, the current case, full of counter-accusations of financial impropriety and broken promises, highlights the complex matters that occasionally make their way into the hands of the police force. Beyond the immediate contours of the case, a broader question emerges regarding the balancing of interests that ought to be done between addressing unscrupulous private grievances and safeguarding public interests. From the counter-allegations levelled against each other between the parties in the present case, it becomes evident that the police finds itself entangled in the irrelevant and trivial details of such unethical private issues, diverting the resources away from the pursuit of more consequential matters. The valuable time of the police is consumed in investigating disputes that seem more suited for civil resolution. This underscores the need for a judicious allocation of law enforcement resources, emphasizing the importance of channelling their efforts towards matters of greater societal consequence.

3. By means of this appeal, challenge is to the correctness of the judgment and order dated 11.07.2023 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in WPCR No.703 of 2022 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant for quashing the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR bearing Crime No.248 of 2022.

4. Relevant facts for deciding the present appeal are as follows:

a) The appellant made a complaint dated 06.04.2021 to the Collector, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) alleging that the respondent no.6 (Rajkumari Maravi) had allured the appellant that she would secure a job for his brother-Raj Kumar Shivas as she had good contacts with higher officers and demanded substantial amount for doing this favour. The appellant got allured and paid Rs.80,000/- cash at the first instance. Later on an additional demand was made and, according to the complaint made by the appellant, he has thereafter deposited about Rs.20,000/- and odd in different bank accounts, details of which were provided by respondent no.6. When nothing happened and no job was provided to his brother, he approached the respondent no.6 for returning the money paid by him upon which she threatened him of false implication and later on she stopped responding to his calls and started avoiding him.

b) The Collector apparently referred the said complaint dated 06.04.2021 to the Superintendent of Police of the District Janjgir-Champa for enquiry. The enquiry is alleged to be entrusted by the Superintendent of Police to the Station House Officer, Police Station Shakti, District Janjgir-Champa. The Station House Officer made detailed enquiries and also recorded the statements of the appellant, respondent no.6 and other persons who were sought to be referred to as witnesses and ultimately submitted the report to the Superintendent of Police on 25.07.2021.

c) The report mentioned interesting facts, according to which, both the parties i.e. appellant and respondent no.6 were accusing each other of having extracted money for securing job for their relatives. As already stated, the appellant was trying to secure a job for his brother whereas, according to respondent no.6, the appellant had taken about Rs.4 lacs from her for securing a job for her daughter. In the enquiry it was also found that when no job was provided by the appellant to her daughter, the appellant returned some amount by depositing it in her bank account. Both the parties had alleged that false complaints were being made against each other. Interestingly when in the enquiry the Station House Officer required the appellant and respondent no.6 to produce the relevant documents and also the details of the call records and recorded conversations, they failed to provide any su