1 2025:CGHC:20173 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 1396 of 2025 Rakesh Shrivastava S/o Shri Harishankar Shrivastava Aged About 50 Years R/o H-14, Nutan Colony, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Civil Line, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Sunita Sahu W/o Chandrakant Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o H-10, Nutan Colony, Sarkanda, Dist.- Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 09.05.2025 1. This petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS for quashment of FIR lodged against the petitioner by the Police Station- Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.) registered as Crime No.539/2025 for offence under Sections 296, 351(2) of BNS, 2023. 2 2. In compliance of order of this Court’s dated 25.04.2025, parties were appeared before the Mediation Centre of this Court on 07.05.2025. 3. As per mediation report, respondent No.2/Sunita Sahu is not ready for mediation, therefore, mediation could not taken place between them. 4. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that respondent no.2/complainant has lodged complainant before the concerned Police Station mentioning therein that, after consuming liquor/alcohol, the petitioner used to throw the stones and liquor bottles in the courtyard of respondent No.2/complainant and also abused her in filthy languages. Based upon complaint, FIR was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 296 & 351(2) of BNS, 2023. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that absolutely bogus and baseless allegation has been levelled against the petitioner by the complainant. There is delay in lodging of FIR, which has not been explained by the prosecution. The impugned FIR has been lodged by complainant as a counterblast to the FIR lodged against her by the petitioner's daughter namely Aditi Shrivastava at PS-Chakarbhata on 03.02.2025, registered as Crime No. 43/2025 for offence U/s 296, 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023. The malice intention behind lodging of the impugned FIR, is to create pressure to withdraw the FIR lodged by Aditi Shrivastava. The petitioner being a government employee, would suffer 3 from administrative civil consequences, if the subject FIR is continued to be pursued by the prosecution. Hence, petitioner has come-up before this Court with aforesaid prayer. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decisions of hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Gian Singh Vs. State (2010) 15 SCC 118; Kanchan Sharma Vs. State of UP (2021) 13 SCC 806; State of Haryana vs Bhajanlal (1992) Suppl. (1) SCC 335. 6. Learned State Counsel opposing submission of counsel for petitioner would submit that in FIR specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner of throwing the stones and liquor bottles in the courtyard of complainant as also abused her in filthy languages after consuming liquor/alcohol. Hence, no grounds is made to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in this petition. He also pointed out that investigations are still going on in both the cases and respondent No.2/complainant has been informed about the pendency of this petition. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR as well mediation report. 8. Considering facts of the case, pleadings made in the petition, submission of counsel for the petitioner that the impugned FIR was lodged by complainant as a counterblast to the FIR lodged against her by the petitioner's daughter namely Aditi Shrivastava, investigation in both cases is still going on, the fact that mediation between the parties has failed and Offence is question are bailable, we deem it proper to allow 4 the investigation to continue in both the cases and the police report be submitted in accordance with law, expeditiously. However, the parties are at liberty to take recourse to the law, if aggrieved by any final report/charge-sheet submitted in any of the cases. 9. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of with the aforementioned observation/directions. CC as per rules. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice J.