IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. M.P. No. 55 ^ •o Applicant Manish Soni, aged about 28 years, 03 S/o Kamta Prasad Soni, R/o Ward No. '.'••'1.'.^>' .vu'''^<y-Ya9^.-''' 15 , Behind Vinay Hotel,Manendragarh ?...^;:1'^^\'.^$^^ Distt-Koriya ft\»* ...••" /7\'<o^' </'' i\'~'.^-~^ A<.1--" ry- Non Applicant <r} .-^- > ~ ^" V C . 6' .^^^ Versus The State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station, Manendragarh Distt. Koriya APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE R A.1 II Apl ^-^.^ A«A Noi c" ___^^-.-.-_ ^r'—^-/> ^o1^ VC'sr\'!y Respondent No. 2 ^.7-v \-y \ <y^~w '^\y ^ DL T-" ^': ^ F" ap an 1. 1£ Sarla Namdeo, D/o Basant Prasad Namdeo Constable, Thana Manendragarh, Distt. Koriya t^ 2. 1S th 3. Ki 204 y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRiyASTAVA.J, APPLICANT NON-APPLICANT Cr.M.P. No.55/2010 Manish Soni Versus State of Chhattisgarh 8s another (Petition u/S 482 ofthe Cr.P.C) Aopearance: Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ashish Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/non-applicant No.l Shri Sunil Otwani, counsel for non-applicant No.2. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 4.10.2010) Heard. 2. This petition under Secdon 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking an order for quashing First Inforination Report No. 176/09 registered in the Police Station- Manendragarh and proceedings in Criminal Case No.437/09 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manendragarh, District- Koriya. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant has been implicated in a completely fabricated case. He submits that on account of dispute of manhandling of applicant's nephew, a complaint has been lodged before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh on 10.5.2009 by the nephew against the complainant in the present case, -2- ^? --—-\ who happens to be a lady constable in the Police Station- Manendragarh. It is subinitted that the applicant sent complaint to the State authorides inaking an allegation of his false implication by the said lady constable, as the applicant had been threatened and a complaint was to be lodged on 12.5.2009, but on that day, the lady constable/complainant called the applicant and threatened to take action against hiin. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that from the FIR lodged by the complainant - lady constable, no case for commission of offence under Section 186 or 506 of the IPC is inade out, even if it is taken as it is. He further submits that other witnesses, whose case diary statements have been recorded by the police, also shows that there is discrepancy in what has been stated in the FIR and the case diary statement of those mdependent witnesses, particularly Vanshraj Singh, Selbastar Lakda 8s Sevaram Bunkar. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that if the background in which the report has been lodged against the applicant, complaint lodged by the nephew of the applicant against the complainant in the present case, contents of FIR Ss case diaiy statements are considered in totality, it is clearly bome-out that the applicant has been falsely implicated by fhe lady constable in order to harass him and to take vengeance, because the applicant had been advocating the case of his nephew. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the fact that the report is false and fabricated is also reflected from some overwriting made in the time of incident recorded in the FIR. He submits that earlier it was written as 12:00 and later on, it was changed to 10:35. -3- 5. Learned counsel for the applicant, in support of his submission, relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs.^tate of^Jharkhand & Anr1. 6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents argued that the lady constable, Sarla Namdeo has lodged report against the applicant in the police stadon making specific allegations fhat the applicant arrived in the police station and threatened her and she was not being allowed to perform her duties, which, on its face value, amounts to obstruction in perforinance of duty and also intimidation. It is further submitted that even the case diaiy statenient also revealed that the applicant had arrived in the police statiori and threatened the lady constable and obstructed her in performance of her duties. It is submitted that the alleged discrepancy in the FIRand in the case diary statements could not be made a basis to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.G. It is further argued that the background which is alleged to be the basis of the present incident, complaint inade to higher authorities 8s complaint made by nephew of the applicant against the lady constable are all matters which pertain to the defence of the petitioner in the trial and could not be made a basis to quash the proceedings, as those facts itself are matters of evidence. 7. I have gone through the contents of the FIR lodged by complainant lady constable. In the FIR, aspecific allegation against the applicant has been levelled that in the background of case against applicant's nephew, the applicant arrived at the police station, where the complainant was discharging her duties of maintaining register relating to issuance of 1 2010 AIRSCW 4975 -4- €^ summons, warrant, and raised his voice and threatened her of dire consequences when she comes out. It has also been stated in the FIR that the applicant started making unnecessary allegations and entered in arguments and he was not allowing the complainant to discharge her duties and when the applicant was advised, he did not accept and she was not being allowed to perform her duties. The case diary statements of Vanshraj Singh, Selbastar Lakda & Sevarani Bunkar also disclose that the applicant had come, threat was administered and the lady constable was obstructed in performance ofher duties. Ifthe contents of the FIR and the case diary statements are taken in its totality, it could not be said that there is no material to prosecute the applicant. Whether the prosecution ultimately succeeds in proving the allegations against the applicant by examining the complainant and other witnesses is a matter for consideration in trial. Discrepancy in the FIR with regard to time of incident on the basis of some overwriting, itself is a matter for consideration in evidence and what would be its effect on the credibility of the story of the prosecution, is a matter within the domain of jurisdiction of the trial Court and this Court, in a petidon under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., would not render a pre-trial decision without any evidence on record. The background ih which the case has been lodged, as stated by the applicant and that the applicant is being falsely implicated, appears to be the defence of the applicant. It would be open for the applicant to raise all these defence during the course of trial. Reliance placed by the applicant in the case of Preeti Gupta (supra) is misplaced, inasmuch as in that case, the Supreme Court after going fhrough the avennents of the cofflplainant and the statements of all the witnesses recorded at the time of filing of complainant, came to the Y Praveen ^6 conclusion that there are no specific allegations against the appellants therein in the complaint and none of the witnesses have alleged any role of both the appellants. As I have discussed above, the factual scenario in the present case is different. 8. Applying the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta (supra), I do not find any ground for quashing the FIR of the criminal case launched against the applicant. 9. Petidon is accordingly dismissed. 10. Before parting with the case, it is made clear that whatever observations have been made by this Court hereinabove, are only for the limited purposes of examining as to whether a case for quashing the FIR is inade out and the trial Court would not be influenced by such observadons. Sd/- MamndraMohan Shrivastava Judge