1 2025:CGHC:13576-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1349 of 2021 Prasun Shukla S/o Late Manharan Lal Shukla Aged About 50 Years Occupation Advocate, R/o Ward No. 25, Bemetara, Tahsil And District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station, Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Kosta, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 21.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shobhit Kosta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent. 2. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the entire charge-sheet filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in connection with Crime no. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.03.22 14:56:43 +0530 2 454/2018 registered at Police Station, Bemetara under Sections 255, 260, 420, 468, 471 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one Bisahat (Plaintiff) has filed a civil suit bearing registration No. 11-A/2018 before the learned Additional District Judge, Bemetara and engaged the petitioner as his counsel. Along with the suit, the plaintiff has also submitted an application under Section 35(1) of Court Fees, Act for exemption from depositing court fee of Rs. 37,120/- which was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 03.09.2016. After dismissal of the aforesaid application, the plaintiff Bisahat was ready to deposit the court fee and on 18.01.2017, the plaintiff prayed before the learned trial Court thereby sought time to deposit court fee. On 11.05.2017 the parties of the aforesaid suit were agreed to compromise therefore the matter was sent to Lok Adalat. But the matter was not settled by compromise. Thereafter, on 11.08.2017 the plaintiff has given stamp paper of Rs. 8000/- to the petitioner and the petitioner deposited the court fees for a sum of Rs. 8000/- and prayed for time to pay remaining court fees and on 07.10.2017 the plaintiff has given stamp paper of Rs. 29,120/- and the petitioner deposited the same as court fees and the learned trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide order dated 28.08.2018 and the learned trial Court has also held that the stamp paper of Rs. 29,120/- which was submitted by the plaintiff is forged and it was directed by the learned trial Court that the plaintiff is liable to pay the same within 3 30 days and for preparing forged stamp paper the learned trial Court had directed to initiate the proceeding separately. 4. On the direction of learned trial Court, one Ashutosh Shrivastava, Assistant Grade-II, Presenter has submitted a written complaint before the Police Station, Bemetara, thereby informed about the forged stamp paper seized, on the basis of which, the impugned FIR has been registered under Crime No. 458 of 2018 on 30.08.2018 under Sections 255, 260, 420, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC against the said plaintiff Bisahat and the present petitioner and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemerata. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an Advocate by profession and the petitioner has deposited the alleged stamp paper on behalf of his client Bisahat, which was given by his client on 07.10.2017 and the learned trial Court has express his observation after 10 months of submission of the said court fees and in the meanwhile, the matter was listed and heard 13 times by the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court after 10 months of submission of court fees has held that the stamp paper is forged and fabricated. He further submitted that as per Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no Court shall take cognizance except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or some other Court to which that Court is subordinate, but the learned trial Court without following the aforesaid procedure has 4 made a written complaint before the police authority and the Police has registered the impugned FIR which is not permissible and the only procedure is to make formal complaint for making an enquiry as per procedure prescribed under Section 340 CrPC. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gopalakrishna Menon and Another Vs. D. Raja Reddy and Another, reported in (1983) 4 SCC 240. 6. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondent opposes this petition and submit that since the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner after due investigation and perusal of the materials on record discloses commission of cognizable offence and because of the interim order passed by this Court, further proceedings have not been completed, as such, no interference is warranted at this stage. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has 5 emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 9. It has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, that the proceedings relating to cognizable ofences cannot be interfered except on certain grounds enumerated by the Apex Court in the said judgment. It is evident that, none of the grounds mentioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment are attracted in the present case. In State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani & others reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of cognizable ofence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR. Also what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence. 10. From perusal of the contents of the FIR as well as in the charge- sheet and materials available on record, it transpires that the impugned FIR has been registered against the petitioner and the co-accused under the instruction of the trial Court upon finding that the stamp paper submitted by them was found to be forged and fabricated, which is evident from the order-sheet dated 6 28.08.2018 passed by the trial Court and there is specific allegation against the petitioner that after receiving an amount of Rs. 37,120/- from his client i.e. co-accused for presenting the for presenting the court-fee, he has submitted the original court fee stamp of Rs. 8000/- and forged stamp of Rs. 29,120/-, on the basis of which the petitioner has been arrested and charge-sheet has been presented against him. 11. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court cannot come to a conclusion that prima facie, no case is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner will have every opportunity before the learned trial Court to rebut the allegations levelled against him. This Court cannot examine or appreciate the evidences that may be led before the learned Trial Court and stalling the trial would be wholly unjustiied. Further, in light of what has been said by the Supreme Court in Bhajanlal (supra) and Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra), there appears to be no good ground for quashing of the charge-sheet. 12. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. 13. Interim order granted earlier stands vacated. 14. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and follow up action forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra