Title: DEEPAK KUMAR SHRIVAS & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 9800 OF 2023
Date of Judgment: FEBRUARY 19, 2024
Coram: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
On Monday, February 19, 2024, Supreme court analyzed a dispute which revolves around allegations of financial impropriety and broken promises regarding securing a job in light of Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which deals with the police submitting a report after completing their investigation. The court emphasized that the purpose of allowing the investigation to proceed is to ascertain the truth and gather evidence. However, it noted that the delay in filing the FIR, coupled with suspicious circumstances and the apparent motive of coercion for recovering money, undermined the integrity of the case. The court concluded that the prosecution should not be allowed to continue when the FIR’s objective is not genuine criminal prosecution but coercion for monetary recovery. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, quashing the proceedings arising from the FIR.
In the case presented, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed that the complaint lodged appeared to be a counterblast to resist the recovery of money, with both parties involved displaying suspicious conduct. They highlighted the delay in filing the FIR, the unexplained nature of the transaction, and the shared culpability between the parties. They concluded that the criminal prosecution shouldn’t proceed as it seemed primarily aimed at coercing money rather than seeking justice. Therefore, they allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings stemming from the FIR.
Background:
The case at hand involves a dispute between the appellants, Deepak Kumar Shriwas and another individual, and the State of Chhattisgarh along with others. The dispute revolves around allegations of financial impropriety and broken promises regarding securing a job. The appellants accused respondent no.6, Rajkumari Maravi, of promising to secure a job for Deepak Kumar Shriwas’ brother in exchange for a substantial sum of money. Allegedly, after receiving payments totaling Rs.80,000/- in cash and additional amounts deposited in bank accounts, respondent no.6 failed to fulfill the promised job placement and subsequently avoided further communication.
The matter escalated when an FIR was lodged against the appellants on the complaint of respondent no.6, alleging that they had taken Rs.4 lakhs in cash to secure a job for her daughter, with no evidence of bank transactions. Both parties exchanged accusations of financial misconduct regarding job placements during police inquiries. Despite recommendations from the Station House Officer to close the complaint due to lack of substantiating evidence and contradictory claims, an FIR was registered based on the complaint of respondent no.6.
In response to the FIR, the appellants filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Chhattisgarh seeking to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings. However, the High Court dismissed the petition, prompting the appellants to appeal to the Supreme Court of India.
In their appeal before the Supreme Court, the appellants challenge the correctness of the High Court’s judgment and order dated 11.07.2023, which upheld the validity of the FIR and refused to quash the criminal proceedings arising from it. The appellants contest the continuation of the legal proceedings against them, arguing that the allegations lack merit and substantial evidence and that the case falls within the realm of civil disputes rather than criminal prosecution.
Courts Judgment and Analysis:
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the FIR was filed with mala fide intent and as a counterblast to resist the appellant from recovering money paid to respondent. It was contended that the delay of over three years in lodging the FIR, coupled with previous unsubstantiated allegations, indicated an abuse of the legal process. On the other hand, counsel for the State of Chhattisgarh and respondents asserted that a cognizable offense was disclosed in the FIR, and thus, the investigation should proceed.
The court analyzed the material on record and section 173(2) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, considering the submissions of both parties. It observed that the respondent was aware of the complaint made by the appellant to the Collector, as her statement had been recorded during the subsequent inquiry. Despite this, there was an unexplained delay of three years before filing the FIR. The court also noted the nature of the alleged transaction, involving payment for securing a job, which it deemed unlawful.
In its analysis, the court found the conduct of both parties suspicious and indicative of unethical or even criminal behavior. It emphasized the shared culpability between the parties and highlighted the questionable motives behind lodging the FIR. The court concluded that the primary objective appeared to be the recovery of money through coercion rather than genuine pursuit of justice.
The court issued a set of recommendations, urging heightened vigilance on the part of law enforcement agencies when dealing with disputes involving unethical transactions between private parties. It underscored the importance of discerning genuine cases from spurious ones to ensure the proper utilization of state resources.
Finally, the court held that the criminal prosecution should not proceed, as the FIR seemed primarily aimed at recovering money under coercion rather than punishing the offender for the alleged offense. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the High Court and quashing the entire proceedings arising from FIR 248 of 2022.
“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.”
Written by- Aditi
Click here to view the judgment
