In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has issued a judgement in the case of Barkat Ali v. State of Chhattisgarh, leading to the quashing of FIR No. 590 of 2019. This judgement follows a petition seeking to challenge the charge sheet filed against the accused persons in a case involving alleged trespassing, demolition of constructions, and theft of materials. The petitioner, Barkat Ali, had raised concerns of animus between himself and the accused individuals. Let’s delve into the details of this crucial verdict.
Facts
- FIR No 590 of 2019 was registered at P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur for various offences.
- Writ petition seeking quashing of FIR was filed but not pursued, with liberty to challenge the charge sheet.
- Accused trespassed, demolished constructions, and stole materials causing financial loss.
- Charge sheet filed against accused persons who were shown as absconding.
- Allegations include trespassing, demolition of constructions, and theft of materials.
- Appeal filed against High Court’s order dismissing petition seeking quashment of FIR and charge sheet.
- Accused threatened complainant when confronted about their actions.
- Complainant purchased land and came into possession through a registered sale deed.
Also Read: Contract Chaos: Municipal Committee Katra vs. Ashwani Kumar Battle in Court
Arguments
- No damage was found to the boundary wall on Barkat Ali’s plot as alleged in the FIR
- Ingredients of the alleged offenses are not made out upon plain reading of the charge sheet
- Appellant’s counsel argued that the case set up by the complainant in the FIR is false and fabricated
- Land owner Sushma Kashyap did not approach the police to lodge a complaint regarding the alleged criminal act by the accused
- The present FIR is seen as a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the appellant against one Satraj Ali, who is a witness for the complainant
- Significant delay in lodging the FIR from the date of the incident, with no explanation provided
- Allegations made in the FIR are vague and uncertain, lacking credibility
- Investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer
- Statements of complainant Barkat Ali, Sushma Kashyap, and Rajkumar Kashyap recorded supporting allegations in FIR
- Complainant had no motive to falsely implicate the accused
- State of Chhattisgarh vehemently opposed appellant’s counsel
- Appellant failed to make a case for interference in the impugned order and charge sheet
Also Read: Jagvir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh: Acquittal on Benefit of Doubt
Analysis
- There is a possibility of animus between the complainant, Barkat Ali, and the accused persons mentioned in the case.
- The FIR was lodged 39 days after the incident without a clear indication of the date or time of the alleged trespass and damage.
- Allegations of demolition of the boundary wall by the accused were not substantiated during spot inspection.
- No complaints were lodged by Sushma Kashyap or Rajkumar Kashyap regarding the criminal activity on their land.
- The damages suffered by Barkat Ali and Sushma Kashyap were quantified at Rs. 6 lakhs and Rs. 4 lakhs respectively, despite Sushma not filing any complaint.
- Invoking the offence under Section 294 IPC is not justified based on the allegations in the FIR and charge sheet.
- The FIR was lodged on 29 June, 2019, with uncertain dates of the alleged offences committed some time prior to 20 May, 2019.
- No reason was provided for the delay of over 39 days in approaching the police.
- The Investigating Officer’s site plan indicated damage to the under-construction house of Sushma Kashyap but not to the property of Purnima Begum.
- The site plan showed that the plot of Purnima Begum was fully encumbered by a boundary wall.
- The impugned FIR appears to be a tool for vengeance against the appellant
- The Court deems it fit to exercise powers under Article 142 to quash the criminal case proceedings
Also Read: Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute: Appellants vs. Karnataka Neravari Nigam Ltd.
Decision
- Judgement quashes and sets aside FIR No 590 of 2019 and all subsequent proceedings
- Appeal is allowed in these terms
- All pending applications are disposed of
Case Title: SHIVENDRA PRATAP SINGH THAKUR @ BANTI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002588-002588 – 2024
