1 2025:CGHC:2205-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 79 of 2025 Ramakant Maurya @ Romi S/o Shri Bandhulal Aged About 33 Years Madhuban Road Dayalband Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home And Police Affairs, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. And Post Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. And Post Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Of Police District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Police Station Ratanpur Through - Officer Incharge District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - Santosh Singh S/o Rajendra Singh R/o Pali Road Dipka, P.S. - Dipka District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.01.15 17:46:57 +0530 2 14.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Badruddin Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4/State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayer: “ it is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the FIR No.533/2022 (dated 25/09/2022) registered under Section 407, 411, 34 of IPC in Police Station Ratanpur, District – Bilaspur, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts are necessary for the case are that on 25.09.22 an FIR has been registered against the four accused persons under Sections 407, 411, 34 of the IPC on the behest of complainant Santosh Singh manager of Fil Company that driver Basant Kumar Maravi of vehicle bearing registration No.CG-12-S-4454 was coming to the Fil Company having Coal from Gevra Coal Mine but before unloading the Coal in Fil Company, driver Basant Kumar Maravi went to Maurya Coal Depot for unloading the Coal. After unloading the Coal, driver Basant Kumar Marati loaded the mixed Coal with help of Sharda Rathore, Ajay Singh and Ramakant Maurya after that driver Basant Kumar Maravi reached the Fil Company then on checking, he disclosed about mixed coal and also stated that he can show the place where the coal has been unloaded and mixed. Thereafter, the FIR has been registered against four accused persons, hence this petition. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.5/complainant had lodged false FIR and looking to para 8 of the FIR, it is clear that the incident was happened between 21.09.2022 to 22.09.2022, but the complainant had lodged the FIR on 25.09.2022 and the reason of delay has not been disclosed. He further submits that the ingredient of offence under Section 407 of the IPC is missing because there is no property, article or material were entrusted in the case and Section 411 of IPC states about receiving stolen property, but the police has not registered the case about theft. As such, the aforesaid sections does not attract against the petitioner. He also submits that the petitioner gave his coal depot on rent to one Lankeshwar Prashad in the month of September, 2022, as such, at the time of incident the coal depot was not in the possession of the petitioner. He contended that as per the FIR, the coal was being lifted by Talvinder Singh Firm from Gevra Coal Mines and it was being supplied to entire coal depot of the States of the country, as such, the owner of the coal was Talvinder Singh Firm and if there was any inferior coal or mixing coal was done in the truck, Talvinder Singh Firm was responsible for the same, as such, respondent No.5 had no power to register FIR. As such, the petition deserve to be allowed and the FIR against the petitioner deserve to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the learned 4 counsel for the petitioner and submits that the present petitioner is involved in mixing of coal. In the present case, there were four accused persons, out of four, three have been arrested and the present petitioner is still absconding. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with these petitions. 7. In compliance of the court’s order dated 09.01.2025, the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur has filed his personal affidavit which states as under:- “1. That, the present affidavit is being filed in compliance of the order dated 09/01/2025 passed by the Hon’ble Court. 2. That, the instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioner praying for quashment of the FIR No. 533/2022 registered by the P.S. Ratanpur against the petitioner and 3 other accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 407, 411 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. 3. That, on 09/01/2025 the matter was listed before the Hon'ble Court and upon hearing the arguments advanced by the parties, the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 09/01/2025 was pleased to direct the Superintendent of Police, District Bilaspur to file his personal afÏdavit calling upon the Investigating OfÏcer as to why the investigation of the case has not yet been concluded though the FIR was lodged on 25/09/2022. 4. That, in compliance of the order dated 09/01/2025 passed by the Hon'ble Court, the deponent herein respectfully submits as under :- 5 a. That, at the very outset, he has the highest regards and great respect for the lawful authority of this Hon'ble Court and its orders, directions and instructions issued from time to time by this Hon'ble Court. b. That, to comply with the order passed by the Hon'ble Court, the deponent has immediately written a letter to the Station House OfÏcer, P.S. Ratanpur District Bilaspur seeking explanation as to why the investigation of the case has not yet been concluded and to demonstrate this fact, copy of the letter dated 10/01/2025 is filed herewith as Annexure A/1. c. That, the deponent respectfully submits that on 04/12/2024, a meeting with respect to review of pendency cases of Police Stations namely Ratanpur, Kota, Chowki Belgahana falling within District Bilaspur was also held under the Chairmanship of the deponent and in the said meeting, the concerned Police OfÏcial / Station House OfÏcers of the said Police Stations including the P.S. Ratanpur were strictly instructed and directed to ensure conclusion of the investigation of the pending cases by arresting the accused persons and ensure submission of final report / challan before the concerned learned Trial Court. In the said meeting, the direction with respect to arrest of the accused persons in connection with Crime No. 533/22 was also issued to the Station House OfÏcer, P.S. Ratanpur. To demonstrate this fact, copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 04/12/2024 is filed herewith as Annexure A/2. d. That, the deponent respectfully submits that as per the explanation given by the Investigating OfÏcer / Station House OfÏcer, P.S. Ratanpur, on the complaint made by the complainant, on 25/09/2022 the offence bearing Crime No. 533/2022 for commission of offence under Section 407, 411 and 34 of the I.P.C. was registered by the P.S. Ratanpur against 4 accused persons namely Romi Mourya (petitioner), 6 Ajay Singh, Sharda Rathore and Basant Kumar Maravi. After registration of offence, the investigation was started by one ASI Onkar Banjare and in the course of investigation, on 25/09/2022 the accused Basant Kumar Maravi (Driver) was arrested. Copy of the reply / explanation given by SHO/ I.O. is being filed and annexed herewith as Annexure A/3. e. That, after transfer of the said Investigating OfÏcer from P.S. Ratanpur, the investigation of the case was carried out by one SI Prasad Sinha and thereafter, by one SI Sagar Pathak and thereafter by one Inspector Devesh Singh Rathore and thereafter by one Inspector Rajneesh Singh. The said Investigating OfÏcers carried out the investigation in the instant crime number and made their all sincere and diligent efforts for arresting the remaining 3 accused namely Ajay Singh, Sharda Rathore and Basant Kumar Maravi, but, could not arrest the said accused persons. It is respectfully submitted that as per the case diary of the crime no. 533/2022, the Police OfÏcials of P.S. Ratanpur made its all sincere and diligent efforts for arresting the accused persons. f. That, the deponent respectfully submitted that, as per the explanation given by the present Investigating OfÏcer, who joined the duty on 22/10/2024, the Investigating OfÏcer, after joining, has commenced the investigation from 14/11/2024 and made his all best, sincere and diligent efforts for arresting the aforesaid remaining accused persons so that the final report / challan could be filed before the learned Trial Court against the accused persons. It is respectfully submitted that on 01/12/2024 the accused namely Ajay Kumar Singh was arrested and on 02/12/2024 another accused namely Sharda Rathore has been arrested by the Investigating OfÏcer and after arrest, they were produced before the learned Trial Court from where they were sent behind the Bar. g. That, the deponent respectfully submitted that, to arrest 7 the present accused / petitioner, the Investigation OfÏcer has made its sincere and diligent efforts for which call details report and location of the mobile number of the present accused has also been obtained from the Cyber Cell and as per the mobile location of the present accused/ petitioner provided by the Cyber Cell, to arrest the accused, the Police OfÏcial of P.S. immediately rushed to Dayalband Bilaspur and Coal Depot Mohatarai falling within Police Station Ratanpur, but, the accused person / petitioner was not arrested because before reaching to the place, the said accused person / petitioner already absconded from the said places. h. That, the deponent respectfully submits that for commission of offence under Section 407 of I.P.C., the conviction is for 7 years and for commission of offence under Section 411 of I.P.C., the conviction is for 3 years. Under such circumstances, the Police of Police Station Ratanpur / Investigating OfÏcer has made their sincere and diligent efforts for arresting the accused persons. It is submitted that the charge-sheet against the accused persons will be filed shortly within a period of one month from the date of filing of this afÏdavit. It is submitted that the police is making the efforts to arrest the present applicant Ramakant Maurya @ Romi. i. That, the deponent respectfully submitted that, he has the highest regards and respect for the orders and directions of the Hon'ble Court and is duty bound to abide by and adhere to the direction of the Hon'ble Court. 5. That, the contents of this afÏdavit have been drafted according to my instructions and the contents thereof are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and belief, based on the ofÏcial records.” 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Neeharika Infrastructure 8 Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others1 has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. The Supreme Court has emphasised that though the court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, also considering the fact that the present petitioner is involved in mixing of coal and in the present case, there were four accused persons, out of four, three have been arrested and the present petitioner is said to have absconding, we do not find any case for quashing of the impugned FIR. 10. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu 1 2021 SCC Online SC 315