1 2025:CGHC:3459 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1147 of 2018 Akhilesh Kumar Shukla S/o Late Yagya Narayan Shukla Aged About 58 Years R/o A-1, Kanchan Vihar, Colony, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Deepak Kumar Lakhotiya S/o Late M. L. Lakhotiya Aged About 57 Years R/o Dainik Prakhar Samachar Siyawa Road Dhamtari, Tehsil and District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, 2. Shri Y. M. Bhattad (Yugal Maniklal Bhattad) S/o Maniklal Bhattad Aged About 63 Years Retired Manager And Legal Head, S. E. C. L. Head Quarter, Seepat Road Bilaspur Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh R/o Shivkuti, Tekri Road, Sitabardi Nagar, P. S. Sitabardi, District : Nagpur, Maharashtra ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1: Mr. Manay Nath Thakur, (Through Video conferencing), along with Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2: None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20.01.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.01.23 19:57:52 +0530 2 respondents for swearing false and forged afÏdavit before the Hon'ble Court in Cr.M.P. No. 814/2018 (Deepak Kumar Lakhotiya Versus Akhilesh Kumar Shukla) seeking quashment of complaint case. 2. The prosecution story, in short, is that the petitioner had filed a complaint case under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the respondents for offences punishable under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of Indian Penal Code for defamation before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereby after finding the prima-facie material and the offences to be made out the learned Trial Court registered the case and issued notices to the respondents. The respondent No. 1 against the said registration of Criminal Case preferred a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Hon'ble Court seeking quashing of the Complaint Case No. 11/2018 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Bilaspur (C.G.). However the same came up for hearing on 24.04.2018 whereby the Hon'ble Court dismissed the said petition observing that the prima-facie reading of the complaint makes out a case. When it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that some petition has been filed, he applied for the certified copy of the entire documents as well the order dated 24.04.2018 and when the same was received it was found that the afÏdavit sworn alongwith the petition was signed by some different person then the person whose name was mentioned as the deponent i.e. respondent No. 1, the said fact was not being alleged by the petitioner as a mere assumption for the reason that in the Vakalatnama which is attached alongwith the petition and signed by the respondent No. 1 bears a signature which is entirely different from the signatures appended in the afÏdavit sworn in support of the petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on perusal of 3 the signature made in the afÏdavit it was found that the said signature appeared to be made by respondent No.2 pretending himself to the respondent No.1 and not being party in the Cr.M.P. No. 814/2018. The petitioner being in the same Department and working together having knowledge of signatures of respondent No.2 as such for getting himself confirm applied certified copy of another writ petition which has been preferred by respondent No.2 himself before the Hon'ble Court alongwith the AfÏdavit and Vakalatnama filed in the said petition and it was found that the signature made by the respondent No.2 in the said Writ Petition (S) No.2778/2018 are the same signatures which have been made by him in the Cr.M.P. No. 814/2018 impersonating himself as respondent No. 1 i.e. Deepak Kumar Lakhotiya. He further added that the respondents have sworn a false afÏdavit before the Hon'ble Court which requires an enquiry to be made with respect to the offence referred to in Clause-B of (1) of Section 195 having been committed in relation to proceedings of Cr.M.P. No. 814/2018 before this Hon'ble Court. Therefore, it is prayed that the direction may be given to initiate inquiry into the allegations made against the respondent No.1 and 2 herein. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the respondent No. 1 has already moved the Hon’ble Apex Court challenging the order dated 24.04.2018 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 814/2018 by filing Special Leave Petition (Criminal) diary No. 19523/2018 and the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to stay the further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 11/2018 {A.K.Shukla v. Shri Y.M.bhatad & Another} which is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur and as such, no fruitful purpose would be served if the present petition is kept pending. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Considering the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that the present matter arises out of Cr.M.P. No. 814/2018 {Deepak Kumar Lakhotiya v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla} wherein the respondent herein i.e. Deepak Kumar Lakhotiya is alleged to have sworn false and forged afÏdavit, and the said petition i.e. Cr.M.P. No. 814/2018 filed by Deepak Kumar Lakhotiya stood dismissed vide order dated 24.04.2018 which has further been challenged before the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) diary No. 19523/2018 and the Hon’ble Apex Court, vide order dated 07.08.2018 has been pleased to stay the further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 11/2018 {A.K.Shukla v. Shri Y.M.Bhattad & Another} which is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, vide its order dated the present petition stands disposed of at this stage. 7. It is made clear that if any cause of action survives after disposal of the SLP (Crl.) pending before the Apex Court, between both the parties, they are free to take recourse to law. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti