2024 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 14931
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
HAMILTON THOMAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
MCRCA/588/2024
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 588 of 2024 Hamilton Thomas, S/o T. Thomas, Aged About 81 Years, R/o Near Anant Karuna Vidya Mandir, Om Nagar, Jarhabhata, Thana – Civil Line, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District – Bilaspur (C.G.)
---- Applicant Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Thana - Civil Line, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.)
2. Alok Wilson S/o C. Wilson, Aged About 55 Years, R/o House No.
228/16 Dipupara Vidya Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.).
---- Non-Applicants (Cause Title is taken from the Case Information System)
For Applicant : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant No.1/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt.
Advocate.
For Non-Applicant No.2/Objector : Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
10.06.2024
1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been iled by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 458/2024 registered at Police Station – Civil Line, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the ofences punishable under Sections 120-
B, 403, 406, 420, 467, 468 of Indian Penal Code (In short, IPC).
2. Prosecution case in brief is that the complainant, namely, Alok Wilson had iled the application under Section 156(3) of CrPC before the Magistrate Bilaspur showing himself as member of the Church of Christ Mission In India and alleged that, the co- accused sellout the land being Khasra No. 296/1 to the other co- accused which is the grave yard land, upon the said complaint the learned Magistrate had directed the Police for registration of the ofence and in pursuance of that, the Police registered the ofence against the applicant. Hence, this application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the crime registered by the Police on the basis of the false complaint made by the complainant against the oice bearers of the Church of Christ Mission In India (In short COCMI) since long, because the services of Alok Wilson was terminated from the Ken Memorial Christian School which was run by the Church of Christ Mission In India, therefore, he had adopted the revengeful attitude. Against the termination order, the complainant had iled the W.P. No. 5255/2009 before this Court and the same is pending. It is further submitted that when the complainant not succeeded to get any interim relief, he had started for making false complaint against the oice bearers of the Church of Christ Mission in India before the diferent forums and he himself constituted the parallel body by misusing the name of the Church of Christ Mission in India and claimed himself as elected oice bearers of the Church of Christ Mission in India and made the complaint before Registrar Forms and Society which was inquired by the Deputy Registrar Forms and Society and declared the so-called election of the complaint is void. It is also submitted that the District Education Oicer Bilaspur also not found any substance upon the complaint made by the complainant and through the letter dated 20.11.2015 had informed the higher authority regarding the baseless complaint made by the complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that looking into the illegal activities of the complainant and his associate, the Church of Christ Mission in India had iled the Civil Suit for permanent injunction against the Alok Wilson and his associate and the said civil suit was allowed by the learned Civil Court Bilaspur on 29.06.2012, and restrained the complainant and his associate to interfere in the work of the COCMI for the reason as they are not the member of the COCMI, and the above judgment & decree had already attended his inality. It is further submitted that despite the knowledge as the complainant not having any right to interfere with the work of the COCMI, he had consciously made the complaint against the COCMI and his oice bearers. The Complainant also made the complaint before the Employees Provident Fund