1 2025:CGHC:3383-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 879 of 2020 1 - Vijay Kumar Das, S/o Shri R.B. Das Aged About 44 Years R/o L I G - 66, Avanti Vihar, Police Station - Khamardih, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Of Police Station D.D. Nagar, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shashi Kiran Atbhaiya, W/o Shri Bhupendra Singh Atbhaiya, Aged About 36 Years R/o Near Mahadeva Talab, Changorabhata, Police Station - D.D. Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, P.L. for the State. Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate for Res. No. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 20 .01.2025 2 1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR of Crime No. 83/2020 registered at Police Station D. D. Nagar, Dist- Raipur for the offence under Section 354 and 506 of IPC and claimed for following prayer in the petition:- “ It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash chargesheet and entire consequential proceeding commenced in pursuance of FIR dated 26.02.2020 bearing number 83/2020 under Sections 354 and 506 of the IPC registered by Police of P.S. D. D. Nagar, Dist- Raipur (CG) and culminated into charge-sheet dated 13.04.2020 bearing No. 62/2020 and pending before Judicial Magistrate, First Class Raipur in Criminal Case No. 1911/2020 and all consequential proceedings pending against the petitioner to secure the ends of justice. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deem fit, in the interest of justice.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.02.2020 the complainant lodged a written complaint to the Police alleging in it that she is posted as Government Servant at Cooperative Inspector Office, Registrar Cooperative Societies, C.G. Raipur. The petitioner who introduced himself as RTI activist and advocate started chatting with her and subsequently he started messaging in her mobile. When his intention was feel bad and when he started talking with filthy language, she stopped him and then he started threatening her and followed her. He also asked for sexual favour which she has refused. On 24.12.2019 at about 8 pm when she came out from her house, the petitioner caught hold her hand and tried to dragged her when she shouted, her husband came there and he threatened her with dire consequences. On 19.02.2020 also when he had gone to his work at Mantralaya, he again came there and again threatened her, therefore, she lodged a written complaint to the Police. On the basis of written complaint, 3 considering the prima facie case appears to be existence, the FIR of Crime No. 83/2020 for the offence under Section 354 and 506 of IPC has been registered at Police Station- D.D. Nagar, Dist- Raipur. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, for the offence under Section 354 and 506 of IPC on 13.04.2020 and the Criminal Case No. 1911/2020 is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Raipur against the petitioner, which is under challenge in the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that from perusal of the FIR, no prima facie offence is disclosed against the petitioner. The material collected during the investigation also does not support the case of prosecution. There is unexplained delay in lodging of the report which has not been explained and the act of the complainant shows her mala fide intention, there is no preliminary inquiry conducted by the Police before registration of the FIR. He would further submit that the petitioner is having dispute with regard to money transaction between them as the husband of the respondent No. 2 has borrowed the amount from the petitioner and in lieu of repayment of the said borrowed amount certain cheques have been given to the petitioner which were dishonoured by the payee bank and in order to avoid his liability to repay the same and to create pressure upon the petitioner, the instant FIR has been lodged. Therefore, in absence of any sufficient material available in the charge-sheet, the petitioner cannot be dragged into criminal trial and the proceeding of the case as well as the FIR are liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that when the conduct of the petitioner was 4 unbearable to the complainant, she made a complaint that the petitioner has tried to outrage her modesty and threatened her. In her statement, she disclosed the entire incident that the petitioner made vulgar comment and tried to outrage her modesty and threatened her with dire consequence. The ingredients of the offence under Section 354 and 506 of IPC are very much available in the charge-sheet and at this stage, it cannot be said that no prima facie case appears to be made out against the petitioner. Therefore, there is no merits in the present petition and the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned State counsel would also oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that after considering the prima facie offence against the petitioner, charge-sheet has been filed for which the proceeding of the criminal case is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and the allegation made by the complainant against the petitioner requires trial and the same can be decided after recording evidence of the parties. Thus, at this stage, no interference is warranted in view of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021 (M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others) and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR and document annexed with the petition. 7. 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 5 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 be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 8. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), 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 F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 9. From perusal of the material annexed with the petition as well as the FIR, it prima facie appears that the complaint has been lodged by the complainant against the act of the petitioner that he tried to outrage her modesty and threatened her. After considering the prima facie case, the Police has filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner before the learned trial Court in which the proceeding of the criminal case is pending. Whether or not, the allegations are correct or false, are to be decided after examining the witnesses and after trial of the case. At this stage, it is very difficult to say that the allegations levelled against the petitioner is true or false, but prima facie evidence is there that she raised the allegation of commission of the offence of outraging her modesty and threatened her. Considering the 6 submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the document annexed with the petition, and further in view of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Neeharika (supra), we do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter. The matter needs investigation which is going on by the Police authorities and the same is required to come into a logical end and the same needs to come a logical end, therefore, we are of the opinion that no merits in the present petition and the same is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika