1 2025:CGHC:15600-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1170 of 2025 1 - Shankar Chakradhari S/o Ajeet Chakradhari Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Chandnu, Mungeli, Dhangava, Police Station- Bhatapara Gramin, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Premlal Chakradhari S/o Shankar Chakradhari Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Chandnu, Mungeli, Dhangava, Police Station- Bhatapara Gramin, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Bhatapara Gramin, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Dr. Arpit Lall, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03.04.2025 1. Heard Dr. Arpit Lall, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.04.04 16:31:18 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘B.N.S.S.’) by the petitioner with the following prayers:- “A. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Crime no.468/2024 registered at Police Station Bhatapara Gramin, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) and the Final Report/Charge Sheet no.493/2024 dated 16.11.2024 registered against the applicant no.2 in the interest of justice. B. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to delete/remove section 109 of the BNS from the present case and direct that the case be remanded back to JMFC Bhatapara for trial under section 296, 115(2), 351(2) of the BNS in the interest of justice. C. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be plesed to grant any other relief/relief’s in favour of the applicants, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant lodged a report in Police Station Bhatapara Gramin, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.) that on 22.09.2024 at about 7.00 PM alleging that when he was sitting at the Bazar chowk of the village Shankar Chakradhari, the petitioner came and began to abuse him on the previous enmity and on 3 being asked to stop abusing, he began to threat him to kill and thereby he was having sickle in his hand and with an intention to kill him, he assaulted the complainant on the backside of the head. On the report of the complainant, the offence was registered against petitioner No.1 (Shankar Chakradhari) bearing Crime No.468/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”). During the course of investigation, name of petitioner No.2 (Premlal Chakradhari) was also added in the in the present case. 4. During the completion of investigation, the charge-sheet bearing No.493/2024 was filed before the concerned Magistrate, in which Section 109 of the BNS was also added for attempting to murder. Thereafter, the case was registered as Sessions Case No. 60/2024, which is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.). 5. Dr. Arpit Lall, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatapara, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) erred in taking cognizance of the present case against the present petitioner No.2, which is not in accordance with the law. He further submits that from the perusal of the FIR, it is glaring that the complainant lodged a report against petitioner No.1 and there is no mention of the name of petitioner No.2 in the FIR as well as neither the contents of the FIR disclose the name and acts attributed by the petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.2 is wrongly and with malafide 4 intention implicated in the present crime in question, hence the FIR and charge-sheet against petitioner No.2 is liable to be quashed. It has been contended that the complainant on many occasions tried to outrage the modesty of the wife of petitioner No.2, on which a written complaint was lodged by the wife of petitioner No.2 at Police Station Bhatapara Gramin, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, (C.G.) on 22.09.2024, in which no action was taken against complainant. It has been further contended that on the date of incident, the complainant was making obscene gestures and uttering obscene words to the wife of petitioner No.2, which was heard by petitioner No.1 and the quarrel broke out between petitioner No.1 and the complainant and on the sudden and grave provocation, the strike was made by petitioner No.1, on which complainant received simple injuries. It has been submitted that the important ingredient of Section 109 (attempt to murder) of the BNS is "Intention to Kill" and the same is not attracted in the present case as there is no intention of petitioner No.1 to kill the complainant and the scuffle broke out in a sudden and grave provocation, as such, Section 109 be deleted/removed in the present case. It has been further submitted that the petitioners have been enlaged on regular bail by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2024 in MCRC No. 7467/2024 while observing that the injuries received by the complainant is simple in nature or simple injuries, as such, the prosecution has committed a grave error by including the name of petitioner No.2 in the present crime in question and furthermore the prosecution greatly erred in adding Section 109 of the BNS, which not in accordance with the law. It has 5 been lastly submitted that the case of the prosecution is completely vitiated and contrary to the provisions of the law as well as the contrary to the law well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, the FIR as well as charge-sheet against petitioner No.2 be quashed and Section 109 of the BNS be deleted from the present case. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the FIR and charge-sheet disclose the cognizable offence against the petitioners. He further submits that though the FIR has been lodged against only petitioner No.1, but during investigation, upon the statement of the complainant, petitioner No.2 has been implicated in the present case and the charge-sheet dated 22.09.2024 has been filed against both the accused persons i.e. petitioners No.1 and 2. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 8. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may 6 be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.). 9. In the well celebrated judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 605, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Guidelines are as follows: “(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety to do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 156(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do 7 not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can every reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly 8 attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 10. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Supreme Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 11. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire 9 about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.) is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of B.N.S.S.), only has to consider whether or not the allegations of FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. Further, while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (now 528 of B.N.S.S.) , final conclusions are as under:- “i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevantprovisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be 10 exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process 11 should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the 12 learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to 13 investigate the allegations in the FIR; xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps” either during the investigation 14 or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/ disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order. xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of “no coercive steps to be adopted” within the aforesaid parameters, 15 the High Court must clarify what does it mean by “no coercive steps to be adopted” as the term “no coercive steps to be adopted” can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied.” 12. Keeping in view the aforesaid law and considering the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the submissions raised by learned counsel for petitioner relate to the questions of fact, and thus, can not be examined by this Court in proceedings under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. The appreciation of evidence or the reliability of the allegations cannot be examined at this stage. 13. From perusal of the charge-sheet, it transpires that the complainant Indrakumar alias Raju Verma, S/o Vishnu Prasad Verma, aged about 25 years, resident of Dapanbid District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh came to the police station and lodged a report alleging that on 22.09.2024, he was sitting near the Naav Bazaar Chowk at about 07:00 AM, at that relevant time, Shankar Chakdhari came to him and started abusing with filthy language about his mother and sister due to old enmity and on refusing to say anything, he threatened to kill him. Thereafter, Shankar Chakradhari assaulted him on the back of the head with a sickle. On the said report, a crime has been registered and investigation has been taken up. During the 16 investigation, MLC of the injury sustained by the injured has been conducted at Community Health Centre, Bhatapara. The names of the petitioners and the witnesses have been recorded and the incident spot has been inspected. The witnesses have stated that Premlal Chakradhari, S/o accused Shankar Chakdhari mentioned in the FIR, was also involved in the present incident. During investigation of the case, the accused persons, namely, 1. Premlal Chakradhari and 2. Shankar Chakradhari were traced and arrested, whose memorandum statements were recorded in front of witnesses. On the basis of memorandum statement of accused Shankar Chakradhari, the sickle used in the incident has been seized and Section 109 of BNS has been added as the accused were found to have attacked the complainant with an intention of kill him by inflicting a fatal blow on the back of the head. The accused were duly arrested on 22.09.2024. 14. From the above stated case laws, it is apparent that the above stated contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner can not be examined by this Court. The adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. In view of the material on record, it can not be held that the impugned criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. FIR or criminal proceedings can be quashed only in accordance with parameters laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in 17 catena of decisions. 15. The Courts should oust and obstruct unscrupulous litigants from invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court on the drop of a hat to file an application for quashing of launching an FIR or investigation and then seek relief by an interim order. It is the obligation of the Court to keep such unprincipled and unethical litigants at bay. It is intellectual truancy to avoid the precedents and issue directions which are not in consonance with law. It is the duty of a Judge to sustain the judicial balance and not to think of an order which can cause trauma to the process of adjudication. It should be borne in mind that the culture of adjudication is stabilised when intellectual discipline is maintained and further when such discipline constantly keeps guard on the mind. 16. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly from the perusal of the FIR lodged by the complainant as well as charge-sheet, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. It has been further considering the fact that though the FIR has been lodged against only petitioner No.1, but subsequently, name of petitioner No.2 has been implicated in the crime in question upon the statement of the complainant, as such, the present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction to quash the impugned FIR as well as further proceedings of the case. 17. In view of the aforesaid, the petition lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. 18 18. The instant Cr.M.P. filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu