* Author
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 364 : 2024 INSC 117
Deepak Kumar Shrivas & Anr.
v.
State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1007 of 2024)
19 February 2024
[Vikram Nath* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Parties levelled counter-allegations against each other of having
extracted money for securing job for their relatives. High Court
whether justified in dismissing the writ petition of the appellant for
quashing the criminal proceedings against him.
Headnotes
Quashing – Parties made allegations against each other of
taking money for providing a job – Respondent no.6 filed FIR
against the appellant – High Court dismissed the writ petition
filed by the appellant for quashing the criminal proceedings
– Correctness:
Held: In the complaint made by the appellant in 2021 an enquiry
was made in which the fact that the respondent no.6 had stated
that she had paid Rs.4 lacs to the appellant for providing a job
to her daughter was recorded – Thus, respondent no.6 was well
aware of the complaint made by the appellant and thus cannot
raise a plea that she had no knowledge of the complaint made by
the appellant – Despite the same she did not lodge any complaint
against the appellant and his brother and waited for more than a
year to lodge the FIR in July, 2022 – According to the allegations
made in the FIR, the job was to be provided by the appellant
within three months of April, 2019 i.e. by July, 2019 – However,
the respondent no.6 did not take any action for a period of three
years till July, 2022 when the FIR in question was lodged – Thus,
the FIR suffers from a serious unexplained delay of three years –
Furthermore, there was totally an unlawful contract between the
parties where money was paid for securing job in the government
department/private sector – Apparently, a suit for recovery could
not have been filed for the said purpose and even if it could be
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 365
Deepak Kumar Shrivas & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
filed, it could be difficult to establish the same where the payment
was entirely in cash – Therefore, the respondent no.6 found out
a better medium to recover the said amount by building pressure
on the appellant and his brother by lodging the FIR – FIR lodged
not for criminal prosecution and for punishing the offender for the
offence committed but for recovery of money under coercion and
pressure – Impugned order set aside, proceeding arising out of
FIR in question quashed. [Paras 11-14, 16, 17]
Administration of Justice – Abuse of process of law– Parties
made allegations against each other of taking money for
providing a job and making false complaints – Police to
exercise heightened caution:
Held: Police should exercise heightened caution when drawn
into dispute pertaining to such unethical transactions between
private parties which appear to be prima facie contentious in light
of previous inquiries or investigations – The need for vigilance on
the part of the police is paramount. [Para 15]
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Quashing; Counter-allegations; Money extracted for securing
job; Police to exercise heightened caution; Resources of the law
enforcement agency; Abuse of process of law.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.1007
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.07.2023 of the High Court of
Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in WPCR No. 703 of 2022
Appearances for Parties
Sameer Shrivastava, Dr. Sangeeta Verma, Shivendra Dixit, Advs.
for the Appellants.
Gautam Narayan, Ms. Asmita Singh, Harshit Goel, Sujay Jain,
Sachin Patil, Kailas Bajirao Autade, Sunil Kumar Sethi, Advs. for
the Respondents.
366 [2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. As a law enforcement agency, the police force shoulders the vital
responsibility of preserving public order, guarding social harmony,
and upholding the foundations of justice. However, the current
case, full of counter-accusations of financial impropriety and broken
promises, highlights the complex matters that occasionally make
their way into the hands of the police force. Beyond the immediate
contours of the case, a broader question emerges regarding the
balancing of interests that ought to be done between addressing
unscrupulous private grievances and safeguarding public interests.
From the counter-allegations levelled against each other between the
parties in the present case, it becomes evident that the police finds
itself entangled in the irrelevant and trivial details of such unethical
private issues, diverting the resources away from the pursuit of more
consequential matters. The valuable time of the police is consumed in
investigating disputes that seem more suited for civil resolution. This
underscores the need for a judicious allocation of law enforcement
resources, emphasizing the importance of channelling their efforts
towards matters of greater societal consequence.
3. By means of this appeal, challenge is to the correctness of the
judgment and order dated 11.07.2023 passed by the Division Bench
of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in WPCR No.703 of 2022 dismissing
the writ petition of the appellant for quashing the criminal proceedings
arising out of FIR bearing Crime No.248 of 2022.
4. Relevant facts for deciding the present appeal are as follows:
a) The appellant made a complaint dated 06.04.2021 to the
Collector, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) alleging that the
respondent no.6 (Rajkumari Maravi) had allured the appellant
that she would secure a job for his brother -Raj Kumar Shivas
as she had good contacts with higher officers and demanded
substantial amount for doing this favour. The appellant got
allured and paid Rs.80,000/- cash at the first instance. Later
on an additional demand was made and, according to the
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 367
Deepak Kumar Shrivas & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
complaint made by the appellant, he has thereafter deposited
about Rs.20,000/- and odd in different bank accounts, details
of which were provided by respondent no.6. When nothing
happened and no job was provided to his brother, he approached
the respondent no.6 for returning the money paid by him upon
which she threatened him of false implication and later on she
stopped responding to his calls and started avoiding him.
b) The Collector apparently referred the said complaint dated
06.04.2021 to the Superintendent of Police of the District JanjgirChampa for enquiry. The enquiry is alleged to be entrusted
by the Superintendent of Police to the Station House Officer,
Police Station Shakti, District Janjgir-Champa. The Station
House Officer made detailed enquiries and also recorded
the statements of the appellant, respondent no.6 and other
persons who were sought to be referred to as witnesses and
ultimately submitted the report to the Superintendent of Police
on 25.07.2021.
c) The report mentioned interesting facts, according to which, both
the parties i.e. appellant and respondent no.6 were accusing
each other of having extracted money for securing job for their
relatives. As already stated, the appellant was trying to secure
a job for his brother whereas, according to respondent no.6, the
appellant had taken about Rs.4 lacs from her for securing a job
for her daughter. In the enquiry it was also found that when no
job was provided by the appellant to her daughter, the appellant
returned some amount by depositing it in her bank account.
Both the parties had alleged that false complaints were being
made against each other. Interestingly when in the enquiry the
Station House Officer required the appellant and respondent
no.6 to produce the relevant documents and also the details
of the call records and recorded conversations, they failed to
provide any such material. Accordingly, it was recommended
that the complaint deserves to be closed.
5. It appears that thereafter the respondent no.6 was successful in
lodging an FIR against the appellant on 27.07.2022, a copy of
which is filed as Annexure P-3. According to the contents of the
FIR, an amount of Rs.4 lacs has been taken by the appellant and
his brother, the other co-accused, for providing a job to the daughter
368 [2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
of respondent no.6. The said amount was paid in April, 2019. The
transaction is said to be purely in cash and there are no bank
transactions. Before registering the FIR in this case also an enquiry
was made and a report was submitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer,
who directed for registration of an FIR. In this enquiry it was found
that both parties have made allegations against each other of taking
money for providing a job.
6. The appellant filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
before the High Court of Chhattisgarh for quashing the FIR and the
proceedings arising therefrom. The said petition has since been
dismissed by the impugned order giving rise to filing of the present
appeal.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on the earlier
occasion upon a complaint submitted by the appellant to the Collector
of the district, an enquiry was conducted in which similar allegations
against each other were made by both the sides which were not
found to be substantiated and, therefore, lodging of the impugned FIR
after about one year of the said enquiry, is mala fide and an abuse
of the process of law. It was further submitted that the impugned FIR
is a counterblast and has been maliciously lodged only to resist the
appellant from recovering the amount paid by him to the respondent
no.6. It is also submitted that the alleged transaction according to
the FIR is of April, 2019 whereas the FIR has been lodged in July,
2022 after more than three years and, therefore, on the ground of
delay, the alleged FIR deserves to be quashed.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State of Chhattisgarh
as also learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that a
cognizable offence was disclosed in the FIR and as such the High
Court has rightly dismissed the petition; the investigation must be
allowed to continue and if ultimately the police report is submitted
under section 173(2) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 finding the
appellant prima facie guilty of the charge on the basis of the evidence
collected during the investigation, the appellant would have adequate
remedy of assailing the charge sheet and also claiming discharge at
the stage of framing of charges. There is no justification for scuttling
the investigation which may ultimately not only deprive the respondent
no.6 of her hard-earned money but also the offence committed by
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 369
Deepak Kumar Shrivas & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
the appellant would go unpunished. It was also submitted that it was
a clear case of cheating as the appellant had deceitfully induced
the respondent no.6 to provide a job to her daughter by taking
huge amount of money and thereafter neither providing the job nor
returning the money.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we proceed to analyse
the material on record and submissions advanced by the parties.
11. In the complaint made by the appellant in 2021 to the Collector an
enquiry has been made by the Station House Officer of the Police
Station concerned in which the fact that the respondent no.6 had
stated that she had paid Rs.4 lacs to the appellant for providing a job
to her daughter was recorded. This clearly means that respondent
no.6 was well aware of the complaint made by the appellant and in
the enquiry her statement had been actually recorded. The respondent
no.6 therefore cannot raise a plea that she had no knowledge of
the complaint made by the appellant. Despite the same she did not
lodge any complaint against the appellant and his brother and waited
for more than a year to lodge the FIR in July, 2022.
12. According to the allegations made in the FIR, the job was to be
provided by the appellant within three months of April, 2019 i.e. by
July, 2019. However, the respondent no.6 did not take any action for
a period of three years till July, 2022 when the FIR in question was
lodged. Thus, the FIR suffers from a serious delay of three years
which is totally unexplained.
13. A reading of the entire material on record clearly reflects that it was
totally an unlawful contract between the parties where money was
being paid for securing a job in the government department(s) or
private sector. Apparently, a suit for recovery could not have been
filed for the said purpose and even if it could be filed, it could be
difficult to establish the same where the payment was entirely in
cash. Therefore, the respondent no.6 found out a better medium
to recover the said amount by building pressure on the appellant
and his brother by lodging the FIR. Under the threat of criminal
prosecution, maybe the appellant would have tried to sort out and
settle the dispute by shelving out some money.
14. In conclusion, certain key observations from the factual matrix warrant
a closer reflection. Prima facie, the conduct exhibited by the parties
involved appears tainted with suspicion, casting a shadow over the
370 [2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
veracity of their claims. The report from the previous inquiry reflects
a convoluted landscape and unveils a trail of unethical, maybe even
criminal, behaviour from both parties. The unexplained inordinate
delay in bringing these allegations to the police’s attention despite
knowledge of previous inquiry, raises even more doubts and adds a
layer of scepticism to the authenticity of the claims. The facts stated,
as well as the prior inquiry, reveal a shared culpability between
the parties, indicative of a complex web of deceit, and unethical
transactions where even civil remedies may not be sustainable. Thus,
the object of this dispute, manifestly rife with mala fide intentions of
only recovering the tainted money by coercion and threat of criminal
proceedings, cannot be allowed to proceed further and exploit the
time and resources of the law enforcement agency.
15. As parting suggestions, it becomes imperative to state that the
police should exercise heightened caution when drawn into dispute
pertaining to such unethical transactions between private parties which
appear to be prima facie contentious in light of previous inquiries
or investigations. The need for vigilance on the part of the police is
paramount, and a discerning eye should be cast upon cases where
unscrupulous conduct appears to eclipse the pursuit of justice. This
case exemplifies the need for a circumspect approach in discerning
the genuine from the spurious and thus ensuring that the resources
of the state are utilised for matters of true societal import.
16. For all the reasons recorded above, we are of the view that such
criminal prosecution should not be allowed to continue where
the object to lodge the FIR is not for criminal prosecution and for
punishing the offender for the offence committed but for recovery
of money under coercion and pressure and also for all the other
reasons stipulated above.
17. We, accordingly allow this appeal, and after setting aside the impugned
order passed by the High Court, quash the entire proceedings arising
out of FIR 248 of 2022.
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey Result of the case:
Appeal allowed.
