1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Order reserved on 18.01.2021

Order delivered on 27.01.2021

Writ Petition (Cr.) No.21 of 2013

Harish Chandra Shiwale, aged about 59 years, S/o

Shri Lotan Prasad. P.No.147598 Technician

R.E.D.II-Department Bhilai Steel Plant Steel

Authority of India Ltd. R/o Street No.29, Quarter

No.2C Sector-8, P.S. Bhilai Nagar, Tah & Distt –

Durg (CG)

---Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House

Incharge Police Station – Bhilai Nagar 490006 Tah

& Distt-Durg (CG)

2. Shri Rajesh Khare, aged about 57 years, S/o Shri

N.P. Khare, Chest Manager, Bank of Baroda, Civil

Center, Indira – Place, P.S. Bhilai Nagar –

490006, PS-Bhilai Nagar, Tah & Distt-Durg (CG)

---Respondents

For Petitioner

: Mr.V.G.Tamaskar, Advocate

For Respondent No.1/State: Mr.Jitendra Pali, Dy.A.G.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

C.A.V. Order

1.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner

calls in question legality and validity of the

FIR and consequent Criminal Case No.412/2012

(State of C.G. v. Malkeet Singh and others) in

which charges under Sections 420/34, 467/34,

468/34 and 471/34 of the IPC have been framed

against the petitioner.

2.

Mr.V.G.Tamaskar, learned counsel for the

petitioner, would submit that there is no prima-

2

facie evidence against the petitioner for the

aforesaid offences registered against him as he

had neither taken any loan from Bank of Baroda

nor he had mortgaged his land bearing Khasra

No.233/16, Settlement No.1720/02, Book No.233/187

Kohka, total area 1500 sq.ft. and totally false

and fabricated complaint was made against the

petitioner by respondent No.2 alleging that he

has sold the land in question by fabricating the

document as originals were kept in custody of

Bank of Baroda. He would further submit that

supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 16.8.2012

along with opinion of government recognized

handwriting expert and as per opinion of the

expert, mortgage-deed executed in favour of Bank

of Baroda and any other documents such as sale-

deeds etc. do not bear the signatures of the

petitioner, as such, prima-facie, no offence is

made out against the petitioner. Therefore,

prosecution and subsequent proceedings against

the petitioner deserve to be quashed. He would

rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in

the matters of Saraj Lamp & Industries Ltd. v.

State of Haryana and others¹ and Bharat Amratlal

Kothari v. Dosukhan Samadh Khan Sindhi and

1 AIR 2012 SC 206

3

others².

3.

On the other hand, Mr.Jitendra Pali, learned

Deputy

Advocate

General

for

respondent

No.1/State, would submit that on valid and

sufficient ground, charge-sheet has been filed

against the petitioner, in which the trial is

going on and as such, no case is made out under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the

writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

considered

their

rival

submissions

made

hereinabove also went through the records with

utmost circumspection.

5.

It the case of the prosecution that the

petitioner has mortgaged the land in question in

favour of Bank of Baroda after depositing the

original title deed and thereafter he has

obtained duplicate Rin Pustika from the office of

Tahsildar, Durg by making false statement that

his original Rin Pustika is missing and

thereafter he sold the said land to one

Smt.Madhumita Sarkar without permission and

knowledge of the bank despite knowing the fact

that he has mortgaged the land in favour of Bank

of Baroda being a guarantor and as such,

2 2010 Cr.L.J. 379

4

aforesaid offences have been registered against

the petitioner. The petitioner has mainly relied

upon the report of handwriting expert submitted