IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
Shatrughan Singh Sahu S/o Shri Ganpat Ram Sahu - Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Law And Legislative Affairs, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh - Respondent
WPCR No. 133 of 2017
Decided On : 07-09-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 and 32 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 384 and 388 - Offence of Extortion - Extortion by threat accusation of an offence – Charged - Challenged - Present petition are that Government of Chhattisgarh has enacted Scheme for benefit of agriculturists by granting subsidy - Beneficiary farmers applied for irrigation instrument in the Department of Agriculture - As per scheme, State Government is giving them instrument and subsidy after following certain procedure. The Rural Agricultural Extension Officer, Village and Post, District, Agricultural Development Officer, Village and Post, District, Agriculture Sub Divisional Officer, Collectorate, Deputy Director Agricultural Collectorate, Dhamtari and respondent No.5/complainant and, Proprietor of Bore-wells have committed gross embezzlement at time of granting subsidy to concerned agriculturists – Held, it is crystal clear that no case of extortion is made out, offence under Sections 384 and 388 of IPC against petitioner is not made out - Proceeding initiated by the complainant is nothing, but an abuse of process of law and on this count alone court is quashing FIR, therefore, no other ground is required to be dealt by this court - No case is made out against petitioner and criminal proceedings is manifestly attended against petitioner with malafide, therefore, initiation of criminal proceeding is nothing, but an abuse of process of law - Considering overall facts and circumstances of case, Court of view that petitioner has made out strong case for quashing of FIR - Accordingly, FIR No. registered at Police Station - Dhamtari on for alleged offence said to have been committed -Accordingly, instant petition is allowed -
ORDER :
1. The petitioner, who is an Advocate by profession, has filed the present writ petition (cr.) challenging the registration of First Information Report against him under Sections 384 and 388 of IPC on the basis of complaint filed by respondent No.5 Kuleshwar Chandrakar before the Police Station Rudri in connection with Crime No. 106 of 2015 on 9-10-2015 and subsequently, the Police has submitted the final report before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari, now the case has been transferred to learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari, bearing Criminal Case No. 1405 of 2015 (State vs. Shatrughan Saho).
2. Brief facts, as projected by the petitioner in the present petition are that the Government of Chhattisgarh has enacted the Shakambhari (Nal-Jal) Scheme for benefit of agriculturists by granting subsidy. The beneficiary farmers applied for irrigation instrument in the Department of Agriculture. As per scheme, the State Government is giving them instrument and subsidy after following certain procedure. The Rural Agricultural Extension Officer, Village and Post Bhatgaon, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Agricultural Development Officer, Village and Post Charmudiya, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Agriculture Sub Divisional Officer, Colllectorate Dhamtari, Deputy Director Agricultural Collectorate, Dhamtari and respondent No.5/complainant Kuleshwar Chandrakar and Roshan Chandrakar, Proprietor of Shri Ram Bore-wells have committed gross embezzlement at the time of granting subsidy to the concerned agriculturists, therefore, the petitioner made a complaint before the Collector, Dhamtari on 3-3-2015 and 24-4-2015 with regard to corruption done by them.
3. On 18-3-2015 the petitioner made a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Dhamtari for registration of FIR against the corrupt employee/officers. Again, the petitioner along with other person namely Naresh Kumar has also filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Dhamtari stating that the persons involved in the embezzlement under the Shakambhari (Nal Jal) Scheme threatened them to cause death. But the respondent authorities i.e., Collector and Superintendent of Police, District Dhamtari and Director of Agriculture Department Raipur did not take any action against the corrupt persons including the respondent No.5.
4. The Superintendent of Police has directed Rudri Police Station to enquire into the matter. Though the statements of persons namely Manik Ram, Tomar Sahu, Abhimanyu and Devendra Kumar have been recorded and all have supported the case, still Police has not taken any action against the erring officials. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C before the learned District and Sessions Court, Dhamtari for registration of offence under Prevention of Corruption Act. On 9-10-2015, the complainant Kuleshwar Chandrakar lodged FIR against the petitioner contending that the petitioner has demanded Rs.25,00,000/- by way of extortion. Police has registered the FIR without conducting any preliminary enquiry. Though the petitioner was present at his office along with other advocates on 9-10-2015, still he has been roped in crime number 106 of 2015 for committing alleged offence under Sections 384 and 388 of IPC.
5. On 20-12-2015 the petitioner has submitted an application before the Police Station Rudri and prayed for an opportunity of defence and also submitted the representation on 24-12-2015 along with documents, but the same has not been considered. On 31-12-2015 when the petitioner was going to court, at that time four persons came in motorcycle and threatened the petitioner by pressing and compelled him to do compromise and withdraw the complaint. On 31-12-2015 the petitioner made a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Dhamtari but no action has been taken. The Police on the strength of the FIR lodged by respondent No. 5, after investigation, registered the offence and final report ha
State of Haryana vs Bhajanlal reported in 1992 Supp1 SCC 335
State of West Bengal vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights West Bengal
Satvir Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another
Vinod Raghuvanshi v. Ajay Arora and others
State of Orrisa Vs. Devendra Nath Padhi reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568
R.S. Nayak vs. A.N. Antulay and another
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & others
Kartar Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1994) 3 SCC 569
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.