1 2025:CGHC:10493-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 890 of 2020 1 - Nahid Akhtar W/o Md. Anwar Aged About 36 Years R/o Azaad Maholla, Kunkuri, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Md. Anwar S/o Khursid Alam Aged About 34 Years R/o Azaad Maholla, Kunkuri, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kunkuri, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Superintendent of Police Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Office Incharge of Police Station Kunkuri, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Reena Aafrin D/o Aynul Hak Aged About 31 Years R/o Aazaad Mohalla Bus Stand- Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. (As Per Honble Court Order Dated 18-02-2025) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmad, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate along with Mr. Vikhyat Arora, Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 04/03/2025 1. Heard Mr. Sachin Nidhi, learned counsel for the Petitioners. Also heard Mr. Sakib Ahmad, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State, Mr. Ankur Diwan, along with Mr. Vikhyat Arora, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR of Crime No. 133/2019 registered at Police Station Kunkuri, District Jashpur for the offence under Section 506 and 34 of IPC and consequent charge-sheet No. 06/2020 dated 24.02.2020 for the offence of Section 294, 506, 509-B, 34 of IPC and prayed the following prayer in the petition: "It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and pleased to quash the FIR No. 133/2019 dated 23.10.2019, charge-sheet No. 06/2020 dated 24.02.2020 and the entire proceeding pending against the present petitioners before the learned Court below, in the interest of justice." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on a report made on 23.10.2019 by the respondent No. 4, the police has registered the offence under Section 506/34 of IPC and after investigation charge-sheet has been filed for the offence under Sections 294, 506, 509-B, and 34 of IPC. It is submitted that the offence of Section 506 of IPC being non-cognizable in nature, the investigation cannot be carried out without the permission of the Court as per Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. He, therefore, submits that the subsequent filing of charge-sheet by the police for the offence under Section 509-B of IPC even if it the cognizable offence, it 3 was nonest and the inherent defect cannot be cured by retrospective operation. Since initiation of the FIR and investigation is bad in law, the subsequent charge- sheet cannot be permitted to continue and the FIR as well as charge-sheet is liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as private respondent opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that on the basis of written complaint the FIR has been registered although Section 506 of IPC is a non-cognizable offence but the contents of the written complaint itself shows cognizable offence, therefore, the police has registered the FIR and after investigation charge-sheet was filed under Sections 294, 506, 509-B and 34 of IPC. Therefore, there is no ground to quash the FIR as well as charge-sheet and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documentary evidence annexed with the petition. 6. From perusal of the document annexed with the charge-sheet would show on a report made by respondent No.4 on 23.10.2019 the police started investigation after registering the FIR under Section 506/34 of IPC. Necessarily the reading of the report would show that the offence of a nature under Section 506 of IPC which is criminal intimidation was complained, as it was stated that the respondent No.4 was subjected to criminal intimidation by the petitioner/accused. Further documents shows that the statement of the complainant was recorded on 25.10.2019 and the statement of the other witnesses were recorded on 02.11.2019 and 09.11.2019 and thereafter charge-sheet was filed on 24.02.2020. 7. Section 506 of IPC makes the offence as non-cognizable. Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. provides that no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. From perusal of the FIR it reveals that the written complaint has been filed on 23.10.2019 and on the same day the FIR has been registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 506/34 of IPC. 4 8. Section 155 sub-section (2) of the Cr.P.C. reads as under: "155. Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigating of such cases. - (1) XXX XXX XXX (2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial." 9. Indisputably, the alleged offence for which the FIR was registered against the petitioner are non-cognizable offence, there is a legal bar created by sub-section (2) of Section 155 of Cr.P.C. for the police to investigate the non-cognizable offence without the order of a competent Magistrate yet the offence of the Crime No. 133/2019 was registered and further investigation to the aforesaid crime was carried out by the police without the requisite permission by the learned Magistrate. 10. The police cannot investigate the non-cognizable offence and any investigation if is made without the permission of the competent Magistrate as contemplated by Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. would be illegal. The subsequent permission of competent Magistrate or filing of the charge-sheet after including the cognizable offence would not validate the illegal investigation that was carried out. In this case apparently appears that in the non-cognizable offence, the investigation was carried out by the police without the permission of the Magistrate and subsequently at the time of filing of charge-sheet the other offences were added. Therefore, it would not validate the earlier investigation carried out by the police. 11. Consequently, the impugned FIR of Crime No. 133/2019 dated 23.10.2019 is quashed. In the result the charge-sheet dated 24.02.2020 and the consequential proceeding of the criminal case No. 94/2020 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kunkuri are also hereby quashed. 12. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.03.11 10:29:00 +0530