DEEPAK KUMAR SHRIVAS & ANR versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 364 · Decided: 19-02-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[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 
[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 coun

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.