Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). ______OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No(s). 1400 of 2024)
SHIVENDRA PRATAP SINGH
THAKUR @ BANTI .…APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
AND ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal by special leave has been filed by the
nd
appellant herein for assailing the order dated 2 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
th
on 20 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
th
common intention prior to 20 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
nd
which stands rejected vide order dated 2 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
th
to have taken place some time prior to 20 May, 2019 whereas, the
th
FIR had been lodged on 29 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
th
sheet as some time prior to 20 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
th
same was lodged by complainant-Barkat Ali on 29 June, 2019
with the allegation that the offences alleged were committed by the
th
appellant and co-accused some time prior to 20 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