Chattisgarh High Court
Geeta Devi Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 May, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:19622-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 679 of 2024
1 - Geeta Devi Agrawal W/o Late Shri Hanuman Prasad Agrawal
Aged About 65 Years R/o Z-6/1 Savadiya Building, Raigarh,
Raigarh Kotwali, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Narayan Agrawal S/o Late Shri Hanuman Prasad Agrawal
Aged About 42 Years R/o Z-6/1 Permanent Residing Of Savadiya
Building, Raigarh, Raigarh Kotwali, Chhattisgarh. Currently
Residing At Dubai Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Amit
Agrawal Aged About 45 Years, Son Of Late Shri Hanuman Prasad
Agrawal, R/o Z-6/1 Savadiya Building, Raigarh, Raigarh Kotwali,
Chhattisgarh.
3 - Amit Agrawal S/o Late Shri Hanuman Prasad Agrawal Aged
About 45 Years R/o Z-6/1 Savadiya Building, Raigarh, Raigarh
Kotwali, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 -State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary
Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
2 -The Station House Officer Police Station Raigarh Kotwali
District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
3 -Sunil Kumar Chandrawanshi Commissioner Municipal
Corporation Raigarh, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Harikeshwar Lakda S/o Shri Gonsai Lakda R/o Gaurishnakar
Mandir Road, Municipal Corporation Raigarh, Kotwali Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
2
5 - Amit Keshwarwani Working As Revenue Sub Inspector, In
Municipal Corporation Raigarh, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
6 - Municipal Corporation Raigarh Through Its Commissioner,
Raigarh, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate with
Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent /State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent/Municipal : Mr. HB Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with
Corporation Ms. A Sandhya Rao, Advocate.
Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
01/05/2025
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC with
following relief(s):
“1). It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be
kind enough to quash the FIR No 150/2024 dated
11.03.2024 registered by Police Station Raigarh Kotwall
District Raigarh (CG) under Section 420 & Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code (Annexure-P/1) as it is untenable
in the eye of law.
2) That, this Hon’ble Court may direct the respondent
state to initiate the enquiry against the Respondent No 3
to 5 as the same officers have misused their official
position and has threaten the common man, and by
misusing the position has directed for the registration of
the false FIR on false pretext of facts.”
3
2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners are that on
05.02.2024, the notice (Annexure P-5) was served by the
Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, (Respondent No 6) in the name
of Kusumdevi, who is the aunt of the petitioner nos. 2 & 3 raising
the demand of property tax to the tune of Rs.31,84,769, to which,
the present petitioners raised issue that the amount imposed by
the Municipal Corporation is incorrect as the same is not
supported with any calculation sheets and requested to correct
the same so that the amount can be paid. Copy of request letter is
Annexed as P-6 (dated 14.02.2024). The Municipal Corporation,
after receiving the said letter of petitioners, has realizing its
mistake and directed to take measurement of property in question,
however, after carried out the same, found that the actual amount
which the petitioner is liable to pay is Rs.21,23,802/-. The
petitioner have accepted the said calculation and agreed to pay
the said amount.
3. Mr. Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide
notice dated 15.03.2024, sum of Rs.21,23,802/- has been
imposed upon the petitioners by the respondent/Municipal
Corporation as revised amount of property tax. The petitioners
have paid/deposit the entire amount on 16.03.2024 as imposed
upon them by the respondent/Municipal Corporation, copy of
online payment receipt is annexed as Annexure P-11. After
receiving the said amount, the Municipal Corporation has written a
letter to the concerned Police Authorities for taking back the FIR
4
registered against the Petitioner, copy of said letter is annexed as
Annexure P-12 (dated 17.03.2024) along with affidavit. Since, the
amount has already been paid/deposited and the affidavit to that
effect has already been submitted by the Corporation, FIR lodged
by respondent No.4 against the petitioner may be quashed.
4. Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent/Municipal Corporation submits that the
respondent/Municipal Corporation has already moved an
application for withdrawing of the FIR lodged by respondent No.4
against the petitioners.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents appended with petition.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that the other respondents though
they have been arrayed by name as party, but it is stated that they
have only discharging their official duties and carried out their
officials functions.
7. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, nature of
allegation, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties,
documents brought on record, particularly the facts that amount in
question has already been paid/deposited by the petitioner and
respondent/Municipal Corporation has already moved an
application for withdrawing of the FIR lodged against the
petitioners, we are inclined to quash the FIR lodged against the
petitioners.
5
8. Accordingly, the FIR No.150/2024 dated 11.03.2024 registered
against the petitioners by Police Station -Raigarh Kotwali, District
Raigarh (CG) for offence under Section 420/34 of the Indian
Penal Code (Annexure -P/1) is hereby quashed.
9. In the result, present petition is allowed to the extent indicated
hereinabove. No cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/-
S (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
J.
[ad_1]
Source link