1 2025:CGHC:15388-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 181 of 2025 Sushil Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Natthu Ram Agrawal Aged About 57 Years R/o Matri Ashish 45, Park Avenue Colony, Jindal Road, Raigarh, District Raigarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Home Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director General Of Police, Police Headquarters, Sector-19, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Station House Officer Raigarh Kotwali, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Station House Officer, Kotra Road Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Nand Kumar Sarthi S/o Late M.R. Sarthi Posted As Head Constable At Raigarh Kotwali, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Vikram Choursiya S/o G.R. Choursiya, Posted As Constable At Raigarh Kotwali, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Shyam Dev Sahu S/o Sadhuram, Posted As Constable At Raigarh Kotwali, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Alsia Toppo W/o Anand Toppo, Posted As Constable At Raigarh Kotwali, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.04.03 16:43:47 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr.Anil Tawadkar, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 4/State : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Dy.Govt.Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order On Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 02.04.2025 1. Heard Mr.Anil Tawadkar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 4/State. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the First Information Report (F.I.R.) dated 06/10/2022 registered against the petitioner bearing Crime No. 281/2022 at Police Station Kotraroad Raigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash final report/chargesheet No. 236/2023 dated 27/06/2023 filed before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class District- Raigarh for offences U/S 186, 353, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and U/S 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the order taken cognizance passed by the Learned JMFC has also taken cognizance and criminal case has been registered as Criminal Case No. 648/2023 3 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to comply with the order passed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 27/04/2023 in MCRCA No. 354/2023 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 to take stringent action on Respondent No. 5 to 8 10.6 Any other relief may also be granted by this Hon'ble court in facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Facts of the case are that on written complaint made on 08/02/2022 by one Manish Kumar Shukla alleging in it that since he is engaged in real estate business and one Rudra Patel is his business partner. In the month of December, 2018 the present petitioner and his son Karan Kumar Agrawal approached the Manish Kumar and his partner Rudra Patel stating that they are owner and title holder of land bearing Khasra No.56, area 14.49 acres of land situated at village Vijaypur. Tehsil & District Raigarh, (C.G.) and they are willing to sell the land for sum of Rs. 1,40,10,120/-. Further Manish Kumar alleged that he and his partner were required to pay the sum till 01/10/2020, regarding purchasing the land for which Manish and his partner agreed, original Revenue Book was handed over to Manish and his partner and they paid the sum of Rs.1,40,10,120/ in the account of Sushil Kumar Agrawal. Thereafter Manish and his partner made request to son of the petitioner for registration of sale deed, then 4 they sought time for a period of three months and in the month of January, 2021 the petitioner and his son tried to sell the land to some other person. 4. Further, Manish Kumar has stated in his complaint that the petitioner had lured Manish and his partner to become partner of Shri Balaji Projects with certain terms and conditions and on 18/07/2020 they signed the partnership deed whereby Manish and his partner came to know that on 05/01/2022, the petitioner is willing to sell the land to some other persons, therefore first information report (F.I.R.) dated 08/02/2022 was registered against the petitioner and his son Karan Kumar Agrawal bearing Crime No. 227/2022 for offences under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Respondent No. 5 who is investigating the matter in Crime No. 227/2022 at City Kotwali Raigarh initiated his investigation and issued notice under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the petitioner and his son, in the meanwhile respondents No. 5 to 8 hands in gloves with Manish Kumar (complainant in Crime no. 227/2022) illegally barged into the house of the petitioner. Respondents No. 5 to 8 without any search warrant entered into the premises of the petitioner on 04/10/2022 and thereafter respondent No. 5 posted as Head Constable of City Kotwali Raigarh District Raigarh made false case against the petitioner alleging that they were searching the petitioner and somehow their informer apprised them the petitioner is hiding in his house 5 and when they had gone to the house of the petitioner, the petitioner obstructed by threatening respondents No. 5 to 8 on the basis of revolver, first information report (F.I.R.) was lodged at another police station i.e., Kotra Road, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) bearing Crime No. 281/2022 dated 06/10/2022 for offences under Sections 186, 353 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. 6. The petitioner moved anticipatory bail application before learned Court below which was rejected, thereafter the petitioner filed application before this Court. This Court vide order dated 21/03/2023 in MCRCA No. 126/2023 enlarged the petitioner on anticipatory bail assigning the reason in para 5 of the order :- 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering that the Complainant Manish Kumar Shukla is doing real estate business with the partnership of Rudra Patel and further learned counsel for the applicant fairly demonstrate that Rudra Patel and Manish Kumar Shukla have also entered the business namely "Shri Balaji Projects with the applicant for which they have executed the partnership deed and the complaint seems to be given the criminal color of a civil dispute, as also in view of the observations/guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others, concerning the subject matter, this Court is inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail.” 6 7. The petitioner after getting bail in Crime No.227/2022 applied anticipatory bail in Crime No.281/2022 contending that the Respondent No. 5 to 8 have illegally barged into the house of the petitioner, the petitioner also filed photographs showing the illegal acts of the Respondent No. 5 to 8. This Hon'ble Court vide order dated 27/04/2023 in MCRCA No. 354/2023 enlarged the petitioner on anticipatory bail. This Court further in Para 9 to 13 had stated that :- 9. Before parting, this Court would take serious note of the fact that in such type of incidents, during investigation, a team of Police Officers led by the Head Constable Nand Kumar Sarthi, Constables Vikram Chourasiya, Shyam Dev Sahu, Ajay and a woman constable Alisa Toppo had gone to the house of the present applicant in connection with Investigation of offence registered under Sections 406 & 420 of the IPC. This Court takes serious note of the conduct of the Police Officers and expects from the Director General of Police to investigate the whole incident as also the behaviour of the sald Police Team. 10. The behaviour of the Police personnel while dealing with person/citizen is most important factor for police community relations as also for better criminal administration of justice. Any unruly, harsh, rustic or indecent conduct of any member of the police force or any disciplined organization normally destroys the trust and confidence of the public as also the motto and objective and tarnishes the image of the Department. An action which is detrimental to the prestige of the institution, unlawful behaviour or transgression of some established and definite rule of action or arbitrariness amounts to misconduct and requires to be dealt with as 7 per the disciplinary rules. Even Government servant normally does nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant and always act with courtesy while discharging his official functions. The investigation of offence is one of the important duties the police have to perform. The power to investigate into cognizable offence by the police officer is ordinarily not impinged by any fetters. However, such power has to be exercised consistently with the statutory provisions and for legitimate purposes and even the Investigating Officer must be sensitive while complying with the Rule and mandate of law. 11. he Director General of Police shall issue suitable directions and if required, may take disciplinary action against the erring officials, they are found to have violated any circular or guidelines issued by the Police Department. This Court observes that such type of misdeeds should not be repeated with any citizen of the State. 12. Let original photographs be supplied to learned State Counsel and the photocopy of the same be filed during the course of the day and the same be made part of the record. 13. Learned State Counsel shall forward the said photographs with covering memo along with copy of this order to the Director General of Police for doing the needful.” 8. On 16/05/2023 memorandum of the petitioner was recorded and in the memorandum he has specifically stated that he does not owns any firearms and he has carry any license of pistol. The petitioner further stated that he has not threatened the police 8 personnel and even no firearm has been seized from the petitioner. Son of the petitioner namely Karan Agrawal when the police officials were not filing the chargesheet in Crime No. 227/2022 filed CRMP No. 825/2022 and this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 24/10/2024 directed the police to conclude the investigation within period of 8 weeks and submit a police report under section 173 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the competent court. 9. Respondent No. 4 without complying with the provisions of this Court he ever forwarded photographs and straightaway filed the chargesheet in Crime No. 281/2022 without disclosing the above- mentioned fact and respondent No. 5 instead of filing the charge- sheet for Crime no. 227/2022 being hand in gloves with Manish Kumar filed chargesheet in Crime No. 281/2022 against the petitioner. Respondent No. 4 has clearly ignored the directions of this Court and just to save himself from the inquiry of the DGP he has filed the chargesheet. 10. That there is CCTV footage and photographs which shows that respondents No. 5 to 8 / police personnel by way of illegal means entered into the house of the petitioner and made false and vague allegations about petitioner threatening them by way of pistol, therefore the petitioner is seeking intervention of this Court for quashing the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner and also stringent action should be taken against respondents No. 5 to 8. Hence, this petition. 9 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the police officials of Kotra Road has wrongly implicated the petitioner in false case in Crime No. 281/2022 being hands in gloves with the complainant in Crime No. 227/2022 and therefore the entire criminal proceedings including the FIR and charge-sheet deserves to be quashed/set-aside. He further submits that this Court in MCRCA No.354/2023 vide order dated 27/04/2023 has clearly directed the Director General of Police to take suitable directions and if required, may take disciplinary action against the erring officials, if they are found to have violated any circular or guidelines issued by the Police Department. This Court observes that such type of misdeeds should not be repeated with any citizen of the State. Let original photographs be supplied to learned State Counsel and the photocopy of the same be filed during the course of the day and the same be made part of the record but even after such order no action has been taken by respondent No. 2 against respondents No. 5 to 8 and instead chargesheet has been filed by the police. He also submits that the first information report has not been lodged by respondent No. 5 treating himself as complainant has lodged the report straightaway against the petitioner which is abuse of process of law because CCTV footage and photographs narrates the incident and shows that the main culprits are respondents No. 5 to 8. As such, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 10 12. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 4/State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with writ petition. 14. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with writ petition, also considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of dispute, we do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu