1 2025:CGHC:39307 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1193 of 2025 1 - Nitin Lawrence S/o Shri Harbert Lawrence Aged About 39 Years R/o Avanti Bai Chowk, Near Lodhipara Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Jaideep S. Robinson S/o Late Shri A.F. Robinson Aged About 57 Years R/o Vidhya Nagar, Robinson Gali, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Civil Line, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicants : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate For Respondent/State :Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate For Objector Mr. Sachin Nidhi and Md. Zakir Ahmed, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06/08/2025 1. This is the first anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 281/2025 registered at Police Station – Civil Line, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34, 420, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant lodged an FIR against the applicants along with the other office-bearers who have supposedly impersonated themselves as the members of the Governing Body of the Chhattisgarh Diocese Board of Education. As per the FIR, the applicants along with the other were fraudulently impersonating themselves as the office bearers of the said Society and they have fraudulently taken decision while deceitfully holding the post of Vice- Chairman and Secretary. According to the complainants, the applicants and others were never given the charge of the governing body as they claim and the decision taken by them as governing members was illegal. The complainant to its furtherance claims the governing members were fraudulently holding the said post when they registered an FIR against the present applicants in the years 2024. The complaint further goes on to state that the while the applicants and the other office bearers where fraudulently holding the said posts, they have wrongfully used the official letter head of the Society and have passed numerous orders, which, as per the complainant, the office bearers were not empowered to do so and thereby an FIR was registered was against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 34, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 on 19.06.2025. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that in the entirety of the FIR in no shape or form the complainants have been able to demonstrate the involvement of the applicants in the supposed impersonation and fraudulent use of the letter head of the society. He also submits that the previous team of office bearers of the Chhattisgarh Diocese Board of Education drew undue financial benefits from the Society illegally in breach of the registered by- 3 laws. A PIL was preferred before this Hon'ble Court being WP(PIL) No. 71/2016 which was disposed off vide order dated 18.11.2022 wherein directions were given to the Registrar, Firms and Societies to conduct an enquiry into the alleged financial irregularities of the Society. Allegations were against the complainants themselves who were the then office bearers. 4. Mr. Das submits that the Diocese of Chhattisgarh and the Chhattisgarh Diocese Board of Education are governed by the mother body being the Synod of The Church of North India, New Delhi. Owing to the wide spread mismanagement in the Governing Body and the complaints of misuse of office, vide resolution dated 24/25.02.2023 a decision was taken to dissolve the Diocese of Chhattisgarh, CNI, and an ad hoc Committee was constituted for a period of 6 months. In light of the said decision, though the Governing Body stood dissolved, but then the previous members of the Governing Body submitted their resignation as between 27.03.2023 to 30.03.2023. It was thereafter that vide letter dated 31.08.2023 it was duly circulated that a new ad-hoc Committee was constituted for the Diocese of Chhattisgarh vide the resolution dated 23/24.08.2023 comprising of 15 members, including 2 of the complainants as well. In the General Body Meeting held on 16.04.2023, 14.07.2023, 18.07.2023, 20.07.2023, and the office bearers of the Society were co-opted to constitute the Governing Body. The details of the said Governing Body was duly informed to the Registrar, Firms & Societies, Raipur, vide letter dated 26.07.2023 and this is evident from the RTI information dated 27.09.2023. 5. Mr. Das next submits that in light of the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court, an Enquiry Committee was constituted by the Registrar, Firms and 4 Societies, Raipur vide order dated 04.01.2023 upon which an enquiry was conducted into the affairs of the said Society whereafter a detail report was submitted by the Enquiry Committee on 03.05.2023. The allegations of financial irregularities and misuse of office to gain financial advantage at the cost of the interest of the Society was made out. Based on the said report, the Registrar issued directions on 31.05.2023 to the Society for taking suitable steps for recovery of the said amounts from those who received undue advantage. Accordingly, the concerned office bearers were directed to reimburse the respective amount to the account of the society/school, however few of them did not deposit the said amount and therefore an FIR was registered bearing Crime No. 336/2024 before Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur on 13.06.2024. Vide letter dated 25.07.2024 the Registrar issued the letter informing the entry of the members of the officer bearers under Section 27 of the Chhattisgarh Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short, the Act of 1973). The Society directed all those who drew undue advantage for having financial gain against the interest of the society to return the money back to the society, to which few returned back the money and deposited the same to the account of the society. Others did not and therefore being compelled by circumstances, the society lodged FIR being FIR No. 0174/2024 on 17.02.2025 against the complainants under Section 308(5) and 3(5) of BNSS. 2023. The office bearers registered the said offense against the complainants for blackmailing the office bearers of the Society to lure exuberant amount of money through criminal intimidation. 6. Mr. Das submits that the present FIR by the complainants is nothing but a fraudulent initiation of criminal machinery to harass and cause undue damage to the society. The smearing tactic adopted by the complainants 5 and the extent of ongoing harassment to the office bearers/ applicants can also be perused by this Hon'ble Court from the complaint dated 19.06.2025 preferred by the applicant No. 1 before the Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur. The ongoing criminal intimidation through one way or another by the complainants to sabotage the reputation of the Society and forcefully corner the duly appointed office bearers to follow through with the demands of the complainant as has been done by way of the present FIR. The report under Section 27 of the Act of 1973 before the Registrar categorically demonstrate the intention behind the present FIR, the decision taken by the governing members along with the use of the letter head by them was well within the domain of the dully appointed governing members of the society. It becomes all the more imperative to mention herein that vide letter dated 23.06.2024 Police Station In Charge, Civil Lines, Raipur had sought information with respect to the current office bearers of the Society to which vide letter dated 24.07.2024 the Registrar of Society's had duly informed the officer in charge with names of the office bearers along with their post and their existing tenure. A bare perusal of the same would categorically demonstrate the authenticity of the utilization of the letter heads by the office bearers, and more over the said decision which were taken by the current members of the governing body against whom the present FIR has been filed was well within the administrative purview of the post holders. 7. According to Mr. Das, the basis for lodging the present FIR is the letter dated 29.09.2022 issued by the Registrar, Firms and Societies, Raipur, which recorded the list of office bearers as communicated vide resolution dated 07.06.2022. The members of the said body already resigned later. The entire allegation by the complainants also becomes glaringly vindictive since few of the current office bearers who along with the 6 applicants are currently holding the post at the Society have also sought for initiation of criminal proceeding against the applicants despite being fully aware with respect to the authenticity of the post held by the applicants. 8. It is lastly submitted that one of the co-accused namely Smt. Rupika Lawrence has also been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 1102 of 2025, vide order dated 25.07.2025. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants on the ground of parity. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stating that prima facie an offence of cheating is found to be committed by the applicants. Mere grant of anticipatory bail to the co- accused namely Smt. Rupika Lawrence would not automatically entitle the applicants to be enlarged on bail and their case has to be considered in light of the allegations levelled against them. 10. Mr. Sachin Nidhi, learned counsel for the objector opposes the instant bail petition and submits that one of the co-accused was granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 1102 of 2025, vide order dated 25.07.2025 on the ground that she is a lady. It is further submitted that there are previous criminal antecedents of both the applicants and as such, they should not be granted anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the applicants have misused the power/post which has never been allocated to them, by registering the FIR No. 336/2024 for the offense under Sections 409, 34 of IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, District-Raipur against the other members of the Diocese of Chhattisgarh, CNI. The aforesaid act has been done by the applicants 7 without any power/without holding any post in the Chhattisgarh Diocese of Education, but both of the applicants showed themselves as the post holder of the aforesaid registered society. The allegation of misappropriation of fund has been levelled against the members against whom the FIR No.336/2024 has been levelled, which is totally false on the face of record. The other members of the religious society namely V. Nagraju had filed an RTI application before the Registrar Firm and Society regarding the name of the person present in the list as per Section 27 of the Act of 1973 and it has been expressed that the name of the member who were selected for the tenure i.e. 29.09.2022 to 2024 is still present in the record. After that, vide dated 25.07.2024, the applicants were selected for the post of Vice Chairman and secretary, which is apparent from the letter dated 25.07.2024, but the same has been challenged in a appeal filed under Section 40 of Act of 1973, in which stay has been granted and directed to the post holders i.e. applicants not to take any policy decision in the Chhattisgarh Diocese Board of Education. 11. It is further submitted by Mr. Sachin Nidhi that the conduct of the applicants has been apparent from the various memo/letter head used by them of the Chhattisgarh Diocese Board of Education (a registered Society) for the suspension, termination and other miscellaneous policy which has been taken without any authority, even after the stay having been granted by the Registrar, Firms & Society. The aforesaid letter/ memo clearly reflects that the applicants had misused the power/post of which they are not even a member in the registered education society. The conduct of the applicants did not stop till the suspension, termination, etc. of the teachers, staff of the Chhattisgarh Diocese Board of Education. But the applicants have treated them the supreme power of 8 the Diocese of Chhattisgarh (Church of North India) also and socially boycotted all those persons who ever raised an alarm against the misconduct done by the applicants, which is apparent from the press release issued by applicant-Nitin Lawrence. The details of the members of the Chhattisgarh Diocese, who has been socially boycotted on the order of Nitin Lawrence are stated in paragraph of the objection and from perusal of the same, it is apparent from the aforesaid information that the whoever person who ever involve to went against the Nitin Lawrence and Jaideep. S. Robinson, then they will be socially boycotted from the Chhattisgarh Diocese. The complainant along with the other members of the Chhattisgarh Diocese had already made a complaint before the authorities with regard to the irregularities done by the applicants by socially boycotted the person, but till date not even a single step has ever been taken by the authorities. The complainant along with other members has also made a complaint before the authorities that despite various F.I.Rs against the applicants, no action has been taken by the Police as well as by any authorities. 12. Mr. Sachin Nidhi next submits that the wife of the applicant-Nitin Lawrence, who is a co-accused, namely Smt. Rupika Lawrence, was granted anticipatory bail in MCRCA No.1102/2025 vide order dated 25.07.2025, and from the very next date i.e from 26.06.2025, she again started to act against the order/provision of law by issuing the suspension/show cause to the employees of the Salem English School which clearly reflects the misconduct of the applicants as well as of the co-accused despite of the order passed by the Registrar Firms & Society not to take any policy decision. The complainant along with the other members has also made a complaint before the superior Synod about the unconstitutional orders passed by the Bishops of Chhattisgarh 9 Diocese by declaring the whole family members as "Not in good standing" and debarred them from Church of North India. It is lastly submitted that the had filed a CRMP No. 1530/2025 before this Court for the quashment of FIR No.801/2024 for the offence under Sections 324(2), 329(3), 3(5) of BNS but the same has been dismissed on merits vide order dated 25.06.2025. The applicants are also involved in the misappropriation of the Provident Fund of the employees of the Salem School of the Raipur, Chhattisgarh, and a complaint has also been made against them, but till date not even a single step has been taken by the respondent authority. The employees of the Salem School is also suffering from vast irregularities done by the applicants. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 14. Basically, the allegation against the applicants are that they have misused the letter head of the Society and claimed themselves to be the office bearers of the Society and according to the complainant, the applicants are not the office bearers and they have no authority to use the letter head of the Society. On going through the objection filed by the objector, it appears that there is dispute with regard to the fact as to who is the real office bearer as some proceedings are also pending before the Registrar, Firms & Societies and the dispute is more of a civil nature and the allegations and counter allegations are nothing but an attempt to grab the commanding position of the Society. Admittedly, the applicant-Nitin Lawrence has four criminal antecedents, one of the year 2024 and three of the year 2025 registered at Bilaspur and District Durg and the applicant-Jaideep Robinson has three criminal antecedents, one registered at Bilaspur, one at Raipur and one at District Durg, however, since the applicant No. 1 had lodged an FIR against the complainants on 17.02.2025 after which the present FIR in question has been lodged by 10 the complainants on 19.06.2025, and further looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of dispute and material available in case diary and the fact that one of the co-accused namely Smt. Rupika Lawrence has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No.1102 of 2025, vide order dated 25.07.2025, as such, without further commenting anything on merits, this Court find it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants on the ground of parity. 15. 15. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants-Nitin Lawrence and Jaideep S. Robinson, on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) Applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) Applicants shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) Applicants shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) Applicants and the sureties shall submit a copy of their Adhaar Card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) Applicants shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Vaishali / Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.08.07 13:52:15 +0530