High Court Of ChhattisgarhCRMP/1590/2017dismissed

Ashwani Dadsena v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2018-03-09Hon'Ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri2 pages

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 1590 of 2017 Ashwani Dadsena S/o Late Gambhir Ram Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Amarpuri Chouck Sundar Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh through The Station House Officer Police Station Amleshwar District Durg Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh

2. Ganesh Gond S/o Dhaneu Ram Gond R/o Matiya Khar, Village Bothli, Tahsil- Patan, P. S. Amleshwar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For the applicant :

Mr. J. K. Gupta, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Astha Shukla, Panel Lawyer --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 09.03.2018

1. Heard.

2. The instant petition is to quash the FIR which is regisered u/s 420 IPC read with section 34 and 120 of IPC. The FIR was lodged by one Ganesh Gond that the land bearing Khasra No. 379 admeasuring 0.85 hectares was held by him through his father (since deceased) at Amleshwar and the petitioner herein has sold the said property on the basis of the fabricated sale deed, therefore, the offence has been committed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the property in question was purchased from one Ramu Lal, in the year 2009 in the name of wife of petitioner and subsequently the property has further been sold to Vimal Jain. He further submits that no offence is made out against

the petitioner and the FIR be quashed.

4. Learned State Counsel was directed to ascertain the past antecedents of the petitioner. It is submitted by the State Counsel that the information was received through the Station House Officer, Police Station Amleshwar that 8 cases of like nature are registered against the petitioner.

5. A perusal of the FIR would show that prima facie, cognizable offence has been reported against the petitioner and further taking into consideration the fact that as many as 8 cases of similar nature are registered against the petitioner, I do not find it a fit case to quash the FIR at this stage. Even otherwise the petition appears to be premature. Accordingly, this petition is rejected.

Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE R a o