Supreme Court dismisses FIR on grounds of 39 day delay, lack of evidence and unsubstantiated claims.
CASE TITLE – Shivendra Pratap Singh v. State of Chattisgarh & Ors.
CASE NUMBER – Criminal Appeal No. 1400 of 2024
DATED ON – 15.05.2024
QUORUM – Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma & Justice Sandeep Mehta
FACTS OF THE CASE
The instant appeal by special leave has been filed by the appellant herein for assailing the order dated 2nd 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 Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’) and the charge sheet filed as a consequence of investigation of the said FIR. 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. A registered sale deed for 10 decimals of the said land was executed on 20th December, 2017. 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 common intention prior to 20th May, 2019, trespassed into the land in possession of the complainant and demolished the under 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. 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.
ISSUES
Whether the appellant trespassed and damaged the property of the complainant and Sushma Kashyap as alleged in the FIR.
CONTENTIONS BY THE APPELLANTS
The 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. He 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.
CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENTS
The Learned counsel representing the State of Chattisgarh 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-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. But no one has appeared to contest the matter on behalf of respondent No. 5 i.e., complainant-Barkat Al
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The Hon’ble Supreme Court after a bare perusal of the impugned FIR revealed to them that the same was lodged by complainant-Barkat Ali on 29th June, 2019 with the allegation that the offences alleged were committed by the appellant and co-accused sometime prior to 20th May, 2019, and observed that 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. It was also noted that the Investigating Officer prepared a site plan during the course of the investigation which has been made a part of the record and after going through the said site plan, it showed that so far as the plot of Purnima Begum, wife of Barkat Ali is concerned, it was fully encumbered by a boundary wall and no damage was shown to this structure. The site plan indicates that there was some damage to the under-construction house of Sushma Kashyap, but 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. And the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that on going through the contents of the FIR, they did not find any material therein which can justify invocation of the offence punishable under Section 294 IPC, and stated that except for the offence under Section 447 IPC, all the remaining offences were 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 was not substantiated during spot inspection. The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that 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. And therefore, were of the view that the impugned FIR seemed to be nothing but a tool to wreak vengeance against the appellant herein. And thereby, the proceedings of the criminal case and the impugned FIR were quashed and set aside, and held that the Appeal was allowed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao