1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1639 of 2022 1 - Janendra Sahu S/o Ramcharan Sahu Aged About 47 Years 2 - Shivprasad Sahu S/o Gariba Sahu Aged About 32 Years 3 - Suresh Sahu S/o Khublal Sahu Aged About 28 Years 4 - Narendra Sahu S/o Lekhram Sahu Aged About 31 Years 5 - Suryakant Sahu S/o Sadhuram Sahu Aged About 28 Years 6 - Puranik Sahu S/o Late Johnu Ram Sahu Aged About 37 Years 7 - Tarun Sahu S/o Late Sukalu Sahu Aged About 47 Years 8 - Bharat Sahu S/o Ramcharan Aged About 52 Years All are R/o Village Kuhkuha, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station, Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - Rupesh Kumar Nirmalkar S/o Late Ayodhya Ram, Sarpanch, R/o Village Kuhkuha, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Shri Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 Ms. Pratibha Sahu on behalf of Shri Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 13.01.2025 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 Present petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of FIR No.551 of 2022 registered against the petitioners at Police Station, Kurud, District Dhamtari, for the offence under Sections 120-B,147,149 and 427 IPC. Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.01.16 11:29:06 +0530 2 2 The prosecution case in brief is that, the respondent No.2 being elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kuhkuha started construction work of a government Complex in the village over the land which was being used for the purpose of ritual and social functions. The petitioners, who are members of Gram Vikas Samiti of said Gram Panchayat raised objection in the said construction work alleging that said construction was raised without obtaining approval from the higher authorities, however, the construction work was not stopped by the respondent No.2. Annoyed with the said act of the Sarpanch, the petitioners have made a written request to the Panchayat Secretary to stop/demolish the said construction work, but the said letter was not accepted by the Panchayat Secretary on account of ongoing strike of Panchayat Secretaries of the State. Thereafter, it is alleged that the petitioners with the help of JCB Machine demolished/removed the said government construction of Complex. Thus, a case of criminal conspiracy and causing damage to public property has been lodged against the present petitioners including JCB driver. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners assailing the said lodging of the complaint submits that firstly the registration of FIR is bad in law for the reason that the complaint has been lodged at the behest of respondent No.2 with a mala fide intention because of political rivalry as all the petitioners were opposing the candidature of respondent No.2 for the post of Sarpanch. Thus, they have been falsely implicated in the offence. The respondent 3 No.2 themselves hired the JCB Machine for demolition of construction work, and therefore, no offence as such could have been lodged against the petitioners. Thus, prayed for quashing of the FIR. 4 The respondent No.2, however opposes the petition on the ground that prima facie there is material available on record to register FIR against the petitioners. The petitioners were members of unlawful assembly and caused damage to the public property. Almost an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- were spent from government fund on the said construction work of complex, and therefore, prima facie there is some material available with the prosecution for registration of FIR. She further submits that at this stage, all that the court has to see is whether there are sufficient materials available before the court below for registration of complaint and which from the contention of the petitioners as well as the document enclosed along with the petition itself is evidently established. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5 This court while hearing a petition under Section 482 CrPC would not conduct a roving inquiry or a mini trial so as to reach to the conclusion as to whether the offence has been made out or not and whether the available materials could lead to the conviction of the petitioner or not. These are the facts which would be adjudicated upon at the relevant time after the evidences are recorded. 4 6 Admittedly the trial court has proceeded further and charge has already been framed against the petitioners which is not under challenge before this court, and as such, in the absence of challenge to the framing of charge, the present petition in its present stage is not maintainable. Therefore, the petition is dismissed with liberty to take recourse of law, if aggrieved of the order framing charge. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder