RAJENDRA DHAR DUBEY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have filed this writ petition with the following reliefs:

(2.) Brief facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that police of police station Ambikapur, district Ambikapur, Surguja, registered FIR bearing crime No. 34/2021 based on the written report dtd. 10/8/2020 by complainant Ravindra Kumar Dubey (Respondent 6) for offence defined under Ss. 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of IPC. The allegations levelled in the complaint are to the effect that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are uncle and aunt and petitioners No. 3 and 4 are cousin brothers of Respondent No. 6/ complainant. Petitioners approached Respondent No. 6 stating that Petitioner No. 1 is suffering with kidney ailment and doctor has suggested for transplantation of his kidney. Petitioners No. 2 to 4 were not found to be fit to donate their kidneys to Petitioner No. 1 and it is Respondent No. 6 only found fit to donate kidney, and can save life of Petitioner No. 1. Petitioners have proposed him that they would transfer a piece of land in his name, construct house on it and also to take care of his family as well as make arrangement of education of his children. WILL was executed by Respondent No. 1 bequeathing portion of land in favour of Respondent No. 6. He was taken to Post Graduate Institution (PGI), Lucknow, showing Respondent No. 6 to be son of Petitioners No. 1 and 2 got his kidney transplanted to Petitioner No. 1. After some time, petitioners have sold the land of which WILL was executed in his favour and have also stopped taking care of his family. The WILL which was executed in favour of Respondent No. 6 was cancelled by Petitioner No. 1 by executing WILL cancellation deed before the Sub-Registrar, Ambikapur dtd. 28/1/2012. Based on the written report, aforementioned FIR was registered for the offence as mentioned above against all the petitioners.

(3.) Mr. Pushpendra Singh Baghel, learned counsel for petitioners would submit that Petitioner No. 1 was suffering with kidney ailment. Doctor recommended for transplantation of his kidney but unfortunately due to mismatch of necessary medical requirements, petitioners No. 2 to 4 were not found fit to donate their kidneys to Petitioner No. 1. Respondent No. 6 being nephew of Petitioner No. 1, when came to know, he with his own will, donated his one kidney to Petitioner No. 1 and in the month of January 2007 procedure of transplantation of kidney was successfully completed. Respondent No. 6 earlier on the same allegations have lodged complaint with police station Bhatgaon district Surajpur on 23/1/2013 (Annexure P-2) and also before the Superintendent of Police, Surajpur on 31/1/2013 (Annexure P-3). When the police have not taken any action on the complaint, Respondent No. 6 filed complaint application under Sec. 200 of CrPC before the Court of jurisdictional Magistrate, Surajpur making allegation of commission of offence defined under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 120-B and 109/34 of IPC. Learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint application on 23/8/2014 which was put to challenge by fling a revision before the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur which also came to be dismissed vide order dtd. 9/4/2015. After dismissal of revision, complainant/ petitioner filed miscellaneous petition under Sec. 482 of CrPC before the High Court, registered as Cr.M.P. No. 503/2015, which was withdrawn on 17/9/2019 vide Annexure P-7 reserving liberty to file complaint before the appropriate authority. Once the complaint filed on the same allegations was dismissed by reasoned order by the Magistrate after applying its mind considering material produced before him and the oral evidence of complainant, the subsequent FIR is not maintainable which was lodged by the complainant on same allegations after dismissal of complaint case and also the revision on merits by the Magistrate and Court of Additional Sessions Judge. Petitioner suppressing material fact of dismissal of earlier complaint by Magistrate, revision by Sessions Judge and order of High Court, again lodged fresh report before other police station at Ambikapur in the year 2020. In lodging new report, Respondent No. 6 has not mentioned of earlier complaint filed before the police station, Bhatgaon, Surajpur, complaint case filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate and also the dismissal of complaint as well as revision by the Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge, respectively, on merits. He also contended that the High Court while exercising its power under Sec. 482 of CrPC in a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging the order of dismissal of Criminal Revision also came to the conclusion that there is no merit in the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Cr.M.P.) and therefore the same was withdrawn wherein the only observation is made of granting liberty to file complaint before the appropriate authority. He contended that the appropriate authority as observed by High Court in an order passed in Cr.M.P. would not mean another report before the other police station. The second/ another complaint at different police station on same facts and allegation is an abuse of process of law and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. On the aforementioned grounds he submits that the subsequent FIR No. 34/2021 registered against petitioners be quashed.