Case Title: Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Case No.: SLP(Criminal) No. 1400/2024
Dated on: 15 May 2024
Coram: Hon’ble JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI, Hon’ble JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA and Hon’ble JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
FACTS OF THE CASE
Barkat Ali, the complainant had purchased a land admeasuring 21 decimals situated at Ashok Nagar, Khamtarai Bilaspur from one Geeta Rai, for a consideration of Rs. 25,00,000/. A registered sale deed for 10 decimals of the said land was executed on 20th December, 2017. The complainant came into possession of the said land. The adjacent plot admeasuring 12 decimals, was purchased by one Sushma Kashyap, wife of Rajkumar Kashyap from the land owner Geeta Rai in the year 2016. The complainant and Sushma Kashyap were allegedly in possession of their respective plots and had raised construction of houses thereupon. The complainant alleged that he had built a boundary wall for the protection of his plot with a gate and grill and that he had stored cement, rods and other construction materials on the plot. The appellant and co-accused allegedly trespassed onto Barkat Ali’s land and demolished his boundary wall and the under-construction house of Sushma Kashyap. They also allegedly stole construction materials, causing a loss of Rs. 6 lakhs to Barkat Ali and Rs. 4 lakhs to Sushma Kashyap. Upon confrontation by the complainant the accused threatened the complainant of dire consequences in presence of witnesses. On the basis of this report, an FIR No. 590 of 2019 came to be registered at P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Upon conclusion of investigation, the Investigating Officer, proceeded to file a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the accused persons showing them to be absconding. The appellant and co-accused initially sought to quash the FIR and criminal case via a writ petition, which was not pressed. They then filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which was rejected by the Chhattisgarh High Court on August 2, 2023. This rejection was then appealed to the Supreme Court in the said Special Leave Petition.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 447 of Indian penal Code:
Section 447 deals with the offense of criminal trespass. Criminal trespass is defined in Section 441 of the IPC, Involves Entering or remaining unlawfully into or upon property in the possession of another person with the intent to commit an offense or to intimidate, insult, or annoy any person in possession of such property. Such person can be punished with imprisonment for up to three months, or a fine of up to five hundred rupees, or Both imprisonment and fine.
Section 427 of Indian Penal Code:
Section 427 pertains to causing loss or damage to property amounting to fifty rupees or more.
Section 294 of Indian Penal code
Section 294 involves committing any obscene act in a public place or singing, reciting, or uttering any obscene song, ballad, or words in or near any public place.
Section 506 of Indian Penal Code
Section 506 deals with the punishment for the offense of criminal intimidation. Criminal intimidation is defined under Section 503 which states threatening someone with injury to their person, reputation, or property, or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm.
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code
Section 34 Imposes liability when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all.
Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure
Section 482 grants the High Court inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under CrPC, to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Article 142 of constitution of India
Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass such decrees or make such orders as necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT
The appellant argued that the entire case set up by the complainant in the FIR is false and fabricated. It was pointed out that Sushma Kashyap, whose under-construction house was allegedly demolished, did not approach the police to lodge a complaint about the incident. Further, the Investigating Officer’s site inspection did not find any damage to the boundary wall on Barkat Ali’s plot, contrary to the allegations made in the FIR. There was also a delay of more than 39 days in lodging the fir for which no reasonable explanation is given by the complainant. The FIR does not contain any specific date and time of the occurrence indicating a possibility of falsity in the FIR. The appellant contended that one of the charges in the chargesheet was section 294 of IPC even though the ingredients making up the offence under the particular section were not satisfied. The appellant highlighted that the FIR was lodged with an animus intention resulting from earlier feuds.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT
The learned counsel representing the State of Chhattisgarh vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant’s counsel. He urged that the complainant had no motive to falsely implicate the accused/appellant. Investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer and during the course of the collection of evidence, the statements of complainant-Barkat Ali, Sushma Kashyap and so also her husband-Rajkumar Kashyap were recorded wherein, they fully affirmed the allegations levelled in the FIR. The respondents urged that even though there was delay and uncertainty in lodging the FIR, it did not undermine the credibility of complainant’s claim. The respondents asserted that the FIR and the charge sheet were legitimate and based on substantial evidence collected during the investigation. Therefore, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed.
COURT’s ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The supreme Court of India hear both the sides and after examining all the evidence on record, it noted that there was a significant delay of more than 39 days in lodging the FIR which went unexplained by the complainant. Following, a substantial amount of uncertainty and vagueness in the FIR as to the date and time of occurrence, i.e. the complainant is unsure of the particular date and addresses it so be some time prior to 20 May, 2019 indication a lack of clarity in the allegations. Upon site inspection by the Investigating Officer the site plan did not corroborate the complainant’s claim of damage to the boundary wall. The site plan showed that the plot was encumbered by a boundary wall without any damage. Also, Sushma Kashyap, whose under-construction house was allegedly damaged, did not lodge any complaint regarding the incident. This absence of a complaint from a key witness raised questions about the credibility of the allegations. The court found al other offenses except offense under section 447 to be non- cognizable. Furthermore, the Court found that the offense under Section 294 IPC (obscene acts and songs) was not substantiated by the allegations in the FIR and charge sheet as the allegations made in the FIR and charge sheet did not provide sufficient material to justify the invocation of the offenses alleged, particularly Section 294 IPC. The court highlighted that there was proximity of complainant’s plot to the plot of the accused which indicates an imminent possibility of animus between the complainant and the accused persons on this count. Therefore, the court was of the view that the impugned FIR seemed nothing but a tool to wreak vengeance against the appellant. The Court decided to exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to quash the proceedings. The Court concluded that it was a fit case for such intervention to prevent abuse of the process of law. With that The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed FIR No. 590 of 2019 and all subsequent proceedings thereto.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – PRATYASA MISHRA
