DEEPAK KUMAR SHRIVAS & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. Citation: 2024 (SC) 129
FACTS: In this case, the Court was dealing with an FIR registered over the alleged failure of the appellant to secure a government job to the complainant despite taking money promising such a job. The Appellant, Deepak Kumar Shrivas 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 – Appellant No. 2, 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, an additional demand was made and, according to the Complaint made by the Appellant, he, thereafter, deposited about Rs. 20,000/- 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.
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, the 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. 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 to secure a job for their relatives. s 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 Lakhs 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 deserved to be closed. Thereafter the Respondent No. 6 was successful in lodging an FIR against the Appellant on 27.07.2022. According to the contents of the FIR, an amount of Rs.4 Lakhs had been taken by the Appellant and his brother, the other co-Accused, for providing a job to the daughter of Respondent No.6. The said amount was paid in April, 2019. The transaction was said to be purely in cash and there were no bank transactions. Before registering the FIR in this case, an enquiry was made and a report was submitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer, who directed for registration of an FIR. Accordingly, the Police registered an FIR 248 of 2022 against the Appellant based on the Complaint of the Respondent No. 6. In this enquiry, it was found that both Parties have made allegations against each other of taking money for providing a job.
ISSUE:
Can a charge sheet or a prosecution complaint be filed in piecemeal without first completing the investigation of the case?
Whether the filling of such a charge sheet without completing the investigation will extinguish the right if an accused the right of an accused for grant of default bail?
Whether the remand of an accused can be continued by the trial court during the pendency of investigation beyond the stipulated time as prescribed by the CrPC?
OBSERVATION:
After perusing the material evidence placed on record and the submissions advanced by the parties, the court noted that the contract entered between the appellant and the respondent no. 6 for securing a job in the government department(s) or private sector is an unlawful contract, and the suit for recovery could not have been filed for the said purpose.
The Supreme Court observed that police should exercise "heightened caution" while registering a criminal case over a dispute involving unethical transactions between parties in which civil remedies are barred. The police should ensure that the parties are not resorting to criminal law remedies to achieve unscrupulous results in cases where civil remedies are barred. Setting aside the decision of the High Court which refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused. The Court also lamented that the valuable resources of the police are getting diverted to disputes which are frivolous in nature.
The court observed that the criminal proceedings initiated at the behest of the appellant and respondent no.6 against each other, is manifestly rife with mala fide intentions of only recovering the tainted money by coercion and threat of criminal proceedings, therefore, such criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to proceed further to exploit the time and resources of the law enforcement agency. Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal while quashing the pending criminal proceedings against the appellant.
