Chattisgarh High Court
Yadllu Muniraj Meharraj vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 August, 2025
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2504 of 2025
1. Yadllu Muniraj Meharraj S/o Late Y.L. Muniraj Aged About 56
Years R/o Maharana Pratap Nagar Mig-1/58, Korba P.S. Civil
Line Rampur, Korba Dist- Korba (C.G.)
2. Tanmay Yadallu S/o Yadllu Muniraj Meharraj Aged About 22
Years R/o Maharana Pratap Nagar, Mig-1/58, Korba P.S. Civil
Line Rampur, Korba Dist- Korba (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer (S.H.O.)
P.S. Kotwali, Korba Dist- Korba (C.G.)
2. Sanjay Kumar S/o Late Bhola Prasad Aged About 51 Years R/o
Subhash Block- Korba, Chowki Manikpuri, P.S. Kotwali, Dist-
Digitally
signed by
BRIJMOHAN
BRIJMOHAN MORLE
MORLE Date: Korba (C.G.)
2025.08.13
10:53:16
+0530
... Respondent(s)
2
Order on Board
11/08/2025 Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Devershi
Thakur, submits that he has filed his power on behalf
of the petitioners today. The same is taken on record.
Heard Mr. Devershi Thakur and Mr. Ashutosh
Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as
Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government
Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent
No.1/State.
The gist of the allegations in the FIR, as per the
complainant/respondent No. 2, is that petitioner No. 2,
Tanmay Yadallu, kidnapped his son Shubham Kumar,
demanded a ransom of Rs. 5,50,000/-, and threatened
to kill him. It is further alleged that petitioner No. 1,
Yadllu Muniraj Meharraj, father of petitioner No. 2, was
aware of the kidnapping and ransom demand and
facilitated the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the actual matter is that petitioner No. 2, a student of
Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning at Rewa
3
University, Bangalore, was sharing a rented
accommodation with Shubham and Shivam, sons of
the complainant, who are also residents of Korba.
During this period, Shubham and Shivam allegedly
assured petitioner No. 2 that they could assist his
friend Priyanshu in securing admission to a reputed
college in Bangalore. Relying on such assurances,
petitioner No. 2 transferred amounts of Rs. 70,000/-,
Rs. 75,000/-, Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 94,999/- for the
said purpose.
It is further contended by the learned counsel for
the petitioners that during the summer break,
Shubham and Shivam vacated the rented premises,
took away the belongings of petitioner No. 2 without
informing him, and ceased communication, leading him
to suspect he had been defrauded. Subsequently,
Priyanshu lodged a complaint in Bangalore alleging
that Shubham and Shivam had deceived him by
promising college admission which was never fulfilled.
When petitioner No. 2 visited Bangalore to recover his
money, he met Shubham, who allegedly refused to
4
return the funds, resulting in a heated exchange.
It is further alleged by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the complainant, being a lawyer,
misused his legal influence to obstruct recovery efforts
and threatened petitioner No. 2 with criminal
proceedings. He filed an application under Section
156(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the JMFC, Korba, District
Korba, which led to the registration of the present
criminal case. Based on the said proceedings, charge-
sheet No. 287 of 2024 dated 20.08.2024 was filed
against the petitioners for offences punishable under
Sections 347, 387 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC) (now Sections 127(7), 308(4) and 61(2) of the
BNS). The learned trial Court has taken cognizance in
Criminal Case No. 3651 of 2024, which is presently
pending for framing of charges.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit
that petitioner No. 1 was granted anticipatory bail by
this Court vide order dated 19.06.2024 in MCRCA
No.587 of 2024, and petitioner No. 2 was granted
anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated
5
18.07.2024 in MCRCA No. 786 of 2024.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
even if the allegations in the FIR and the statements of
the complainant are taken at face value, they do not
prima facie constitute any offence against the
petitioners, and the continuation of criminal
proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of
law.
Issue notice to the respondents by ordinary as
well as registered post.
Learned State counsel appears and accepts
notice on behalf of respondent No. 1; hence, issuance
of notice to respondent No. 1 is dispensed with.
Process fee be paid within one week for
issuance of notice to respondent No. 2.
Notice be made returnable in four weeks.
Two weeks’ time is granted to the learned State
counsel and respondent No. 2 to file their reply-
affidavit, and thereafter, one week’s time is granted to
6
the petitioners to file their rejoinder-affidavit.
List this matter thereafter.
Till the next date of listing, further proceedings in
Criminal Case No. 3651 of 2024 pending before the
Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba, District
Korba (C.G.), against the petitioners, shall remain
stayed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan