High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPCR/102/2016dismissed

Dev Narayan Nayak v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-04-26Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P. (Cr.) No.

of 201 Dev Narayan Nayak, son of late Mouji Nayak, aged about 73 years, R/o. 55/2, Nehru Nagar (East), P.S. Supela, District Durg (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through : The Station House Officer, Police Station, Supela, District Durg (C.G.)

2. K.M. Choubey, son of late R.C. Choubey, aged about 67 years, R/o. 4 Cross Street, Vidyavihar, Nehru Nagar, West, P.S. Supela, District Durg (C.G.)

3. Raj Bahadur Prasad, son of Prasadi Singh, aged about 67 years, R/o. 63/11, Nehru Nagar, West, P.S. Supela, District Durg (C.G.)

4. G. Pandey, son of late Goverdhan Pandey, aged about 68 years, R/o. Smriti Nagar, Street No. 24, House No.450, P.S. Supela, District Durg (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner:

Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1/State: Mr. Arun Sao, Dy.Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 2 6 /0 4 /201 Heard.

(1) Instant writ petition has been filed for quashing of FIR dated 18.06.2013 and the charge sheet dated 21.07.2013 filed before the jurisdictional criminal court.

(2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is inordinate delay of 10 years in lodging the FIR and, as such FIR

and the charge sheet deserve to be quashed. He placed reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Kishan Singh (dead) through LRS Vs. Gurpal Singh & others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 775 in support of his case.

(3) Fact remains that after lodgement of the FIR and upon submission of charge sheet, trial Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the charges have already been framed on 21.07.2013 and, the petitioner has not challenged the same and, as such, it has attained finality.

(4) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material available on record, it cannot be held that taking entire material on record taken in its face value, no offence under Section 420 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner.

(5) Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage, without notice to other party. Certified copy, as per rules.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge D/-