DEEPAK KUMAR SHRIVAS & ANRversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.

                  [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

* Author
[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 Janjgir-
           Champa 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.