SUNIL SATPATI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Sec. 482 of CrPC has been preferred by the Petitioners seeking for quashment of the registration of an FIR at Police Station Deobhog, District Gariyaband which has been registered as Crime No. 98 of 2016.

(2.) Counsel for the Petitioners at the outset submits that he is primarily aggrieved by the registration of an FIR against the Petitioners for the offence punishable under Ss. 384 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' in short) and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) ('the SC/ST Act' in short). He submits that the registration of the FIR for the said offences is per se illegal and prima facie the offences are not made out in the light of the complaint which has been lodged before the police authorities. He further submitted that this Court in exercise of its powers under Sec. 482 of CrPC should curb such misuse of exercise by the police authorities in framing those charges with a malafide intention of arresting the Petitioners for non-bailable offence and forcing them to undergo the trauma and agony of trial and further proceedings. He also submitted that if this Court at this juncture goes into the contents of the FIR itself it would prima facie establish that the offence under Sec. 384 of IPC and Sec. 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is not made out and therefore appropriate directions should be given to the Respondent to ensure that the offences which are not made out against the Petitioners should not be registered against them and that the offences which have been registered against the Petitioners under the said Ss. may be set aside/quashed.

(3.) Counsel for the State however opposes the petition on more than one ground. He submits that it is too premature a petition and which should not be entertained by this Court at this preliminary stage. According to the State Counsel the date of incident is of 10/5/2016 and the present petition has been filed absolutely in less than about 30-35 days time, that is, on 17/6/2016. He further submitted that the present case is at the investigation stage and the charge-sheet has not been filed and that all the contentions put forth by the Counsel for the Petitioners are all matters of apprehension and if in the course of the investigation if the police authorities find that no such offences have been made out against the Petitioners under Sec. 384 of IPC and Sec. 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, they should not have any assumption or presumption that yet the charge under Sec. 384 of IPC and Sec. 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act would be levelled against them. In furtherance to his contentions, the State Counsel objects to the maintainability of the present petition on the ground that even if the police authorities filed a charge-sheet against the Petitioners for the offences which prima facie are not made out as has been contended by the Counsel for the Petitioners, they have an alternative remedy of approaching the Court by moving appropriate application seeking discharge under Sec. 227 of CrPC. In addition, the accused persons can also move an application under Sec. 216 of CrPC at the appropriate stage before appropriate Court. State Counsel thus prayed that the petition being totally misconceived and premature at this juncture deserves to be dismissed.