1 2025:CGHC:2206 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1082 of 2018 Salik Tiwari @ Saligram Tiwari S/o Late Kanji Tiwari Aged About 87 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Ramanujganj Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus Mohammad Ayub S/o Late Rahmat Husain Aged About 40 Years R/o Kanakpur, Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.01 .2025 1. Heard Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Rahul Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.01.14 18:18:43 +0530 2 petitioner for quashing the criminal complaint lodged against him which was registered and charges were framed under Sections 294, 506-B and 379 of Indian Penal code along with Section 4 of the C.G. Reniyon Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam 1937 vide order dated 19.12.2017. The revision challenging the said order has been dismissed vide order dated 08.05.2018, therefore, this petition for quashment of complaint and for setting aside order dated 19.12.2017 and 08.05.2018. 3. The prosecution case in brief, is that, a complaint was lodged by the complainant against the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Balrampur at Ramanujganj, bearing complaint case No. 213/2016 alleging that the complainant has taken a loan of Rs. 56000/- at the rate of 5% per month interest from the petitioner herein and it was agreed that the loan would be repaid within one and half years along with amount of interest. The complainant has paid the interest regularly, thereafter, he has further paid a sum of Rs 35,000/- in April 2014 and further a sum of Rs. 21,000/- in May 2015, however the petitioner herein has demanded Rs. 80,000/- towards loan account and has further threatened him. In the month of December/January the petitioner and his son stopped the complainant when he was going on his motorcycle, they have looted his Hero Honda motorcycle and have further threatened him. The petitioner herein got his signature on a plain stamp paper and has directed the complainant to give him a sum of Rs. 80,000/- then only he will 3 return his motorcycle and the signed stamp paper. The complainant was threatened and abused by the petitioner herein. A meeting of the local resident was also held in which it was revealed that no loan amount is outstanding against the complainant however the petitioner has denied to return his motorcycle and stamp paper. Due to aforesaid incident the petitioner had made a complaint before the Police Station Ramanujganj however no action has been taken he made a complaint before the S.P. Balrampur, however no FIR has been lodged due to which complaint is being filed. On the basis of complaint the learned CJM initiated proceeding and has called report from the concerned Police Station in which the concerned Police Station has sent a report stating that there is dispute in respect of transaction of money between the parties. The learned Magistrate recorded evidence of the complainant and his witnesses and on the basis of evidence of the complainant and his witnesses issued notice to the petitioner herein. The petitioner appeared before the CJM, argument was heard before framing charges. On the basis of complaint and the evidence the learned CJM registered the complaint under Sections 294, 506-B and 379 of Indian Penal Code along with Section 4 of the C.G. Reniyon Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam 1937 vide its order dated 19.12.2017 and has issued notices to the petitioner herein. Against order dated 19.12.2017 the petitioner has filed a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge Ramanujganj stating that without there being any 4 evidence charges have been framed against him and the petitioner is required to be discharged. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision while confirming the order dated 19.12.2017. The entire complaint lodged against the petitioner is vexatious and it has been lodged in order to implicate the petitioner is a false case. The perusal of complaint goes to show that none of the ingredients is made out for initiating trial for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506-B and 379 of IPC along with Section 4 of the C.G. Reniyon Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam 1937. The complainant has lodged the complaint in order to save his skin and to settled personal scores against the petitioner. It is worthwhile to state here that the petitioner herein has also lodged a complaint against the complainant alleging that he has cheated the present petitioner by receiving a sum of Rs. 2 lacs for providing government job to his son however neither job was provided nor his money was returned. The complainant has sold his motorcycle to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/- after executing a sale deed and thereafter he has lodged a false complaint in which there is serious defeats however without considering the same offence has been registered. Since the complaint itself is false and fabricated and it is made only to settled personal score and to save skin which is an abuse of process of law, hence this petition for quashment of complaint. The order dated 04.02.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) is without any merits and liable to set 5 aside. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire complaint lodged against the petitioner is vexatious which is liable to be quashed by this Court. In the complaint no dates have been mentioned about the alleged incident which itself is doubtful. According to complainant his motorcycle was looted on 13.11.2015 however the complaint was lodged on 25.06.2016. The said inordinate delay is unexplained and it creates serious doubt in respect of complaint. The Police has closed the matter against the petitioner under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. stating that the matter relates about transaction of money between the parties for which the parties may avail remedy before the competent jurisdictional Court. In the complaint, the complainant has stated that he has taken loan of Rs. 56,000/- from the petitioner however in the evidence before framing charges, he has stated that a loan of Rs. 55,000/- was taken by him from the petitioner, this itself is goes to show that false complaint has been lodged. There is serious defeats in the complaint and in the statement made by the witnesses in support of complaint. Evidence of one important witness, namely, Krishna Tiwari had not been recorded though he is available, therefore, the presumption goes against the complainant. The complainant witnesses are not the eye witnesses or the direct witnesses of the transaction but they are hearsay witnesses as such they are not trustworthy the 6 complainant has not filed any document or receipts in respect of amount paid by him to the petitioner. Another important witness, namely, Mumtaj Ansari was not examined by the complaint in support of his complainant though he was available, therefore too complaint is not trust worthy. In the complaint it was stated that the motorcycle of the complainant was looted from the road forcefully after abusing and threatening him, however in the evidence recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., the complainant has stated that he went along with the son of the complainant where stamp paper was purchased and thereafter motorcycle was taken away by the petitioner. The aforesaid is a serious contradiction which is required to be considered as from the aforesaid no case is made out against of the petitioner. The learned CJM has not considered the important aspect of the matter and has not applied his mind while framing charge against the petitioner. The revisional Court has also not considered the revision in true prospective and has dismissed the revision in a casual manner though there is no ingredients for offence punishable under Section 294, 506-B and 379 of Indian Penal Code along with Section 4 of the C.G. Reniyon Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam 1937 of the act however without there being any material charges have been framed. There is no likelihood of conviction of the petitioner and the entire proceeding is sheer misuse of criminal proceeding. The complainant has deliberately filed a criminal complaint while abusing the process of law. From 7 the entire material available before the Court no criminal case is made out against the petitioner at the best civil case in respect of transaction of money can be filed by the complainant. Thus, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set-aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the aforesaid submissions and submitted that after fully applying mind the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) passed the order dated 08.05.2018 in Criminal Revision No. 01/2018, afÏrming the order of framing of charge under Sections 294, 506-B and 379 of the IPC, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanujganj, District – Balrampur (C.G.) passed in Criminal Case No. 213/2016 dated 19.12.2017 and all consequential proceedings arising thereof is hereby quashed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions made hereinabove and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. From the perusal of the records and submissions raised by the counsel for the petitioner, it transpires that the petitioner who is aged about 94 years old person till date, has also lodged a complaint against the complainant alleging that he has cheated the present petitioner by receiving a sum of Rs. 2 lacs for providing government job to his son however neither job was 8 provided nor his money was returned, and the complainant has sold his motorcycle to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/- after executing a sale deed and thereafter he has lodged a false complaint and without considering the offence has been registered, thus, the present case appears to be a fit case for interference by this Court for exercising the inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC. The impugned order dated 08.05.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 01/2018, afÏrming the order of framing of charge under Sections 294, 506-B and 379 of the IPC, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanujganj, District – Balrampur (C.G.) passed in Criminal Case No. 213/2016 vide order dated 19.12.2017, and all consequential proceedings arising thereof is hereby quashed. 8. Resultantly, this petition is allowed. 9. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti