As parting suggestions, it becomes imperative to
state that the police should exercise heightened
caution when drawn into dispute pertaining to
such unethical transactions between private
parties which appear to be prima facie
contentious in light of previous inquiries or
investigations. The need for vigilance on the part
of the police is paramount, and a discerning eye
should be cast upon cases where unscrupulous
conduct appears to eclipse the pursuit of justice.
This case exemplifies the need for a circumspect
approach in discerning the genuine from the
spurious and thus ensuring that the resources of
the state are utilised for matters of true societal
import. {Para 15}
16. For all the reasons recorded above, we are of the
view that such criminal prosecution should not
be allowed to continue where the object to lodge
the FIR is not for criminal prosecution and for
punishing the offender for the offence committed
but for recovery of money under coercion and
pressure and also for all the other reasons
stipulated above.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
DEEPAK KUMAR SHRIVAS & ANR. Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Author: VIKRAM NATH, J.
Citation: 2024 INSC 117.
1. Leave granted.
2. As a law enforcement agency, the police force
shoulders the vital responsibility of preserving
public order, guarding social harmony, and
upholding the foundations of justice. However,
the current case, full of counter-accusations of
financial impropriety and broken promises,
highlights the complex matters that occasionally
make their way into the hands of the police force.
Beyond the immediate contours of the case, a
broader question emerges regarding the
balancing of interests that ought to be done
between addressing unscrupulous private
grievances and safeguarding public interests.
From the counter-allegations levelled against
each other between the parties in the present
case, it becomes evident that the police finds
itself entangled in the irrelevant and trivial
details of such unethical private issues, diverting
the resources away from the pursuit of more
consequential matters. The valuable time of the
police is consumed in investigating disputes that
seem more suited for civil resolution. This
underscores the need for a judicious allocation of
law enforcement resources, emphasizing the
importance of channelling their efforts towards
matters of greater societal consequence.
3. By means of this appeal, challenge is to the
correctness of the judgment and order dated
11.07.2023 passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court of Chhattisgarh in WPCR No.703 of
2022 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant
for quashing the criminal proceedings arising out
of FIR bearing Crime No.248 of 2022.
4. Relevant facts for deciding the present appeal are
as follows:
a) The appellant made a complaint dated
06.04.2021 to the Collector, District Janjgir-
Champa (Chhattisgarh) alleging that the
respondent no.6 (Rajkumari Maravi) had
allured the appellant that she would secure a
job for his brother -Raj Kumar Shivas as she
had good contacts with higher officers and
demanded substantial amount for doing this
favour. The appellant got allured and paid
Rs.80,000/- cash at the first instance. Later
on an additional demand was made and,
according to the complaint made by the
appellant, he has thereafter deposited about
Rs.20,000/- and odd in different bank
accounts, details of which were provided by
respondent no.6. When nothing happened
and no job was provided to his brother, he
approached the respondent no.6 for returning
the money paid by him upon which she
threatened him of false implication and later
on she stopped responding to his calls and
started avoiding him.
b) The Collector apparently referred the said
complaint dated 06.04.2021 to the
Superintendent of Police of the District
Janjgir-Champa for enquiry. The enquiry is
alleged to be entrusted by the Superintendent
of Police to the Station House Officer, Police
Station Shakti, District Janjgir-Champa. The
Station House Officer made detailed enquiries
and also recorded the statements of the
appellant, respondent no.6 and other persons
who were sought to be referred to as witnesses
and ultimately submitted the report to the
Superintendent of Police on 25.07.2021.
c) The report mentioned interesting facts,
according to which, both the parties i.e.
appellant and respondent no.6 were accusing
each other of having extracted money for
securing job for their relatives. As already
stated, the appellant was trying to secure a
job for his brother whereas, according to
respondent no.6, the appellant had taken
about Rs.4 lacs from her for securing a job for
her daughter. In the enquiry it was also found
that when no job was provided by the
appellant to her daughter, the appellant
returned some amount by depositing it in her
bank account. Both the parties had alleged
that false complaints were being made against
each other. Interestingly when in the enquiry
the Station House Officer required the
appellant and respondent no.6 to produce the
relevant documents and also the details of the
call records and recorded conversations, they
failed to provide any such material.
Accordingly, it was recommended that the
complaint deserves to be closed.
5. It appears that thereafter the respondent no.6
was successful in lodging an FIR against the
appellant on 27.07.2022, a copy of which is filed
as Annexure P-3. According to the contents of
the FIR, an amount of Rs.4 lacs has been taken
by the appellant and his brother, the other coaccused,
for providing a job to the daughter of
respondent no.6. The said amount was paid in
April, 2019. The transaction is said to be purely
in cash and there are no bank transactions.
Before registering the FIR in this case also an
enquiry was made and a report was submitted to
the Sub-Divisional Officer, who directed for
registration of an FIR. In this enquiry it was
found that both parties have made allegations
against each other of taking money for providing
a job.
6. The appellant filed a petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution before the High Court of
Chhattisgarh for quashing the FIR and the
proceedings arising therefrom. The said petition
has since been dismissed by the impugned order
giving rise to filing of the present appeal.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
on the earlier occasion upon a complaint
submitted by the appellant to the Collector of the
district, an enquiry was conducted in which
similar allegations against each other were made
by both the sides which were not found to be
substantiated and, therefore, lodging of the
impugned FIR after about one year of the said
enquiry, is mala fide and an abuse of the process
of law. It was further submitted that the
impugned FIR is a counterblast and has been
maliciously lodged only to resist the appellant
from recovering the amount paid by him to the
respondent no.6. It is also submitted that the
alleged transaction according to the FIR is of
April, 2019 whereas the FIR has been lodged in
July, 2022 after more than three years and,
therefore, on the ground of delay, the alleged FIR
deserves to be quashed.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State
of Chhattisgarh as also learned counsel for the
respondents have submitted that a cognizable
offence was disclosed in the FIR and as such the
High Court has rightly dismissed the petition; the
investigation must be allowed to continue and if
ultimately the police report is submitted under
section 173(2) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
finding the appellant prima facie guilty of the
charge on the basis of the evidence collected
during the investigation, the appellant would
have adequate remedy of assailing the charge
sheet and also claiming discharge at the stage of
framing of charges. There is no justification for
scuttling the investigation which may ultimately
not only deprive the respondent no.6 of her hardearned
money but also the offence committed by
the appellant would go unpunished. It was also
submitted that it was a clear case of cheating as
the appellant had deceitfully induced the
respondent no.6 to provide a job to her daughter
by taking huge amount of money and thereafter
neither providing the job nor returning the
money.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we
proceed to analyse the material on record and
submissions advanced by the parties.
11. In the complaint made by the appellant in 2021
to the Collector an enquiry has been made by the
Station House Officer of the Police Station
concerned in which the fact that the respondent
no.6 had stated that she had paid Rs.4 lacs to
the appellant for providing a job to her daughter
was recorded. This clearly means that
respondent no.6 was well aware of the complaint
made by the appellant and in the enquiry her
statement had been actually recorded. The
respondent no.6 therefore cannot raise a plea
that she had no knowledge of the complaint made
by the appellant. Despite the same she did not
lodge any complaint against the appellant and
his brother and waited for more than a year to
lodge the FIR in July, 2022.
12. According to the allegations made in the FIR, the
job was to be provided by the appellant within
three months of April, 2019 i.e. by July, 2019.
However, the respondent no.6 did not take any
action for a period of three years till July, 2022
when the FIR in question was lodged. Thus, the
FIR suffers from a serious delay of three years
which is totally unexplained.
13. A reading of the entire material on record clearly
reflects that it was totally an unlawful contract
between the parties where money was being paid
for securing a job in the government
department(s) or private sector. Apparently, a
suit for recovery could not have been filed for the
said purpose and even if it could be filed, it could
be difficult to establish the same where the
payment was entirely in cash. Therefore, the
respondent no.6 found out a better medium to
recover the said amount by building pressure on
the appellant and his brother by lodging the FIR.
Under the threat of criminal prosecution, maybe
the appellant would have tried to sort out and
settle the dispute by shelving out some money.
14. In conclusion, certain key observations from the
factual matrix warrant a closer reflection. Prima
facie, the conduct exhibited by the parties
involved appears tainted with suspicion, casting
a shadow over the veracity of their claims. The
report from the previous inquiry reflects a
convoluted landscape and unveils a trail of
unethical, maybe even criminal, behaviour from
both parties. The unexplained inordinate delay in
bringing these allegations to the police’s
attention despite knowledge of previous inquiry,
raises even more doubts and adds a layer of
scepticism to the authenticity of the claims. The
facts stated, as well as the prior inquiry, reveal a
shared culpability between the parties, indicative
of a complex web of deceit, and unethical
transactions where even civil remedies may not
be sustainable. Thus, the object of this dispute,
manifestly rife with mala fide intentions of only
recovering the tainted money by coercion and
threat of criminal proceedings, cannot be allowed
to proceed further and exploit the time and
resources of the law enforcement agency.
15. As parting suggestions, it becomes imperative to
state that the police should exercise heightened
caution when drawn into dispute pertaining to
such unethical transactions between private
parties which appear to be prima facie
contentious in light of previous inquiries or
investigations. The need for vigilance on the part
of the police is paramount, and a discerning eye
should be cast upon cases where unscrupulous
conduct appears to eclipse the pursuit of justice.
This case exemplifies the need for a circumspect
approach in discerning the genuine from the
spurious and thus ensuring that the resources of
the state are utilised for matters of true societal
import.
16. For all the reasons recorded above, we are of the
view that such criminal prosecution should not
be allowed to continue where the object to lodge
the FIR is not for criminal prosecution and for
punishing the offender for the offence committed
but for recovery of money under coercion and
pressure and also for all the other reasons
stipulated above.
17. We, accordingly allow this appeal, and after
setting aside the impugned order passed by the
High Court, quash the entire proceedings arising
out of FIR 248 of 2022.
……………………………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
……………………………………J.
(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)
NEW DELHI
FEBRUARY 19, 2024
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment