DILIP PAHADE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these three petitions filed under Sec. 482 of CrPC arise out of same Crime No. 33325034170114 registered at Police Station Jamul, District - Durg under Sec. 420/34 of IPC, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for the petitioners in CRMP No. 885/2017, respondent Nos. 4 to 11 in CRMP No. 507/2018 and respondent Nos. 5 to 12 in CRMP No. 1375/2018. Also heard Mr. Badruddin Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRMP No. 507/2018 and for respondent No.4 in CRMP No. 1375/2020, Mr. Prasoon Agrawal and Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRMP No. 1375/2020 and for respondent No. 3 in CRMP Nos. 507/2018 and 1375/2020 and Ms. Madhunisha Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents.

(3.) CRMP No. 885 of 2017 and CRMP No. 507 of 2018 has been filed by the petitioners, who are the officers/employees of the State Bank of India and Borrower respectively for quashing of the F.I.R. registered at P.S. Jamul District - Durg (C.G.) bearing Crime No. 33325034170114 on 25/2/2017 U/s 420/34 of IPC lodged by the complainant - Dr. Animesh Shrivastava, who was one of the guarantor whereas CRMP No. 1375 of 2020 has been filed by the petitioner not against any specific order but against the arbitrariness and reckless attitude of the police authorities in not taking any action in respect of the aforesaid FIR registered against the private respondents.