[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Vandana Mishra vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 July, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally
signed by
2025:CGHC:30082-DB
SHOAIB
SHOAIB ANWAR
ANWAR Date:
2025.07.03
23:16:34
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 28 of 2025
1 - Smt. Vandana Mishra W/o Ajay Kumar Mishra Aged About 45 Years
R/o Quarter No. 01, Awadhpuri, Risali, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
2 - Rajat Kumar Mishra S/o Ajay Kumar Mishra Aged About 23 Years R/o
Cross Street 01, Kalpakriti Parisar, Awadhpuri, Risali, District Durg
Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station Incharge, Police Station Bhilai
Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
2 - Aun Chakravorty S/o Late M.L. Chakravorty Aged About 55 Years R/o
Mig - 2/188, Amdi Nagar, Hudco, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS)
2
For Petitioner(s) : Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms.
Preeti Yadav, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate
For Respondent No. 2 : Shri Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate.
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
03.07.2025
1. Heard Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner.
Also heard Shri Sangharsh Pandey, learned Govt. Advocate and
Shri Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
2. The instant CRMP has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS
with following prayer:-
“It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly
be pleased to allow the petition by quashing FIR No.
0141/2024 (Annexure P/1) and quashing of charge
sheet (Annexure P/3) on the basis of FIR No. 0141/2024
as final report No. 72/2024 dated 14.04.2024 u/s 420,
406 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code and also the
proceedings registered before Shri Vivek Netam,
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg from 25.04.2024 till
date between State of CG Vs Vandana Mishra &
another (Annexure P/4), holding it to be delayed FIR in
registering the criminal case which is of civil nature case
be directed to be quashed, in the interest of justice.”
3. Prosecution story in a nutshell is that one Arun Chakravorty has
3
lodged an FIR in Police Station Bhilai Nagar on 13.03.2024 at
04:00 PM for the offence committed on 16.07.2023 to 19.07.2023
i.e. about 8 months delay. The complainant alleged that his sister-
in-law (Sali) Smt. Vandana Mishra and her son Rajat Mishra have
taken out amount of Rs. 1,01,001/- through UPI from the account
of his wife and as such they committed cheating. Earlier also he
made a complaint to Superintendent of Police and thereafter
lodged FIR u/s 420 & 34 of Indian Penal Code before Police
Station Bhilai Nagar. It is further contented that the wife of
complainant Archana Chakravorty died on 13.07.2023 due to
cancer in Raipur hospital and she was having bank account in
Canara Bank, Sector-6, Bhilai having account no. 0298131001185
also also having a mobile of Jio Sim No. 6266888904, the said
mobile was with the mother of deceased Archana Chakravorty
namely; Nibha Hazara. The mobile was connected with bank
account, it is contented that after death of his wife, her sister taken
out amount through UPI from 16.07.2023 to 19.07.2023 and
transferred it to her son Rajat Mishra, on 16.07.2023 Rs. 1/-,
16.07.2023 Rs. 15000/-, 16.07.2023 Rs. 15000/-, 17.07.2023 Rs.
30000/-, 18.07.2023 Rs. 1000/- and on 19.07.2023 Rs. 40000/-,
thus a total of Rs. 1,01,001/- was withdrawn, therefore they have
committed offence u/s 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that registration of FIR
is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, wherein a purely civil
4
dispute has been given a criminal color to exert pressure on the
Petitioners. It is a settled principle of law that criminal law cannot
be invoked in a dispute that is essentially civil in nature, and where
the necessary ingredients of the offence alleged are not made out.
He further submits that it is admitted by complainant himself in an
FIR that the mobile was connected with the account of deceased
which was in possession of petitioner No. 1, therefore it is clear
that deceased was keeping faith on petitioner No. 1, therefore
amount, if any, withdrawn by the petitioner No. 1 with the aid of her
son cannot be said to be a criminal case. He further prays for
quashing the FIR registered against the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the argument
made and submits that registration of FIR is just and proper as
cognizable offence is made out.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the act of
petitioners are typical an offence and not of civil nature, the
registration of FIR is just and proper and the petition filed by the
petitioners is liable to be dismissed.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents.
8. From perusal of the pleadings and documents, it is quite vivid that
the petitioner No. 1 is the sister in law of the private respondent.
The disputed amount which is stated to be withdrawn with due
5
consent of private respondent and it appears that the mobile
number of the complainant was connected with the bank account
of the deceased which was in possession of the petitioner No. 1,
therefore, they are having faith upon the petitioner no. 1 as she is
their relative and under his knowledge and also for the purposes
of treatment, the amount has been withdrawn. From the said
dispute, it is manifest that prima facie, the same is purely of civil
nature.
9. At this juncture, we would like to emphasize on the need for a
Magistrate to be cautious in examining whether the facts of the
case disclose a civil or a criminal wrong. Attempts at initiating
vexatious criminal proceedings should be thwarted early on, as a
summoning order, or even a direction to register an FIR, has
grave consequences for setting the criminal proceedings in
motion. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims which do not
involve any criminal offence, by way of applying pressure through
criminal prosecution, should be deprecated and discouraged.
10. The Supreme Court in a catena of decisions expressed grave
concern in respect of allowing civil disputes to be wrongly
converted into criminal proceedings.
11. In view of the foregoing, the FIR No. 0141/2024 and charge sheet
as final report No. 72/2024 dated 14.04.2024 and also the
proceedings registered before Shri Vivek Netam, Judicial
6
Magistrate First Class, Durg against the petitioners for the offence
punishable under Section 420, 406 r/w Section 34 of IPC are
quashed.
12. Accordingly, the CRMP is allowed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Shoaib/Amardeep
[ad_2]
Source link