1 2025:CGHC:27570-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1530 of 2025 1 - Nitin Lawrence S/o Harbart Lawrence Aged About 39 Years R/o Shankar Nagar Road, Lodhipara, P.S. Pandri, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Jagdish S. Rabinse, S/o Late A.F. Rabinse, R/o Vidhya Nagar, Rabinse, Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - The Director General Of Police, Police Department, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Of Police, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Mayank Mani Dubey S/o Shri Banke Bihari Dubey Aged About 44 Years R/o Geetanjali Enclave Ring Road No. 2, Gourav Path, P.S. Civil Line, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Ms.Sangeeta Soni, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 4/State : Mr.Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.06.25 18:02:51 +0530 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 25.06.2025 1. Heard Ms.Sangeeta Soni, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondents No.1 to 4/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the following prayers :- “1. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023 filed by the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 2. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR bearing Crime no. 801/2024 registered on 29.08.2024 at police station Civil Line, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh filed under section 324 (2), 329(3), 3(5) of B.N.S. in the interest of justice. 3. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash entire charge sheet Criminal Case No. 866/2024 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Bilaspur- District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh against the petitioners under section 324 (2), 329(3), 3(5) of B.N.S. in the interest of justice. 3 4. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly grant any other reliefs in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has made complaint to Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur stating inter-alia that on 29.08.2024 he saw and found that on date of incident i.e. 28.08.2024, property of the campus of Mission Hospital have been damaged by unauthorized persons at night which is showing in CCTV footage. Based upon such complaint, the concerned police station has registered FIR on 31.10.2023 for offence punishable under Sections 324 (2), 329(3), 3(5) of B.N.S. against the present petitioners. Thereafter, the police has completed the investigation and produced charge-sheet before the competent Court against the accused persons and proceeding is going on and no charge has been framed against the accused persons till today. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the act of the respondents is illegal, erroneous, discriminatory and contrary to the law. The petitioners have neither damaged the property of the mission hospital nor committed any aforesaid offence as alleged by the prosecution against them. There is no any eye-witness, who had seen the incident. The police authorities have registered FIR against present petitioners only on the basis of the memorandum statement and merely suspicious which is showing 4 in CCTV footage, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. She further submits that the offence under Sections 324 (2), 329(3) and 3(5) of the BNS is not made out against the present petitioners because there is no ingredients of offence under Sections 324 (2), 329(3) and 3(5) of the BNS. She also submits that learned trial Court has found that the petitioners have not committed any aforesaid offences and granted bail to the petitioners after considering the material available on record and hence impugned proceeding is liable to be set-aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No.1/State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the FIR discloses prima facie cognizable offence, as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned FIR produced by the learned State counsel. 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 taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not 5 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 the well celebrated judgment reported in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 605 the Apex 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 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 6 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 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." 9. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 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 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 7 allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 10. 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 482 of Cr.P.C. (Now Section 528 of the BNSS). The appreciation of evidence or the reliability of the allegations cannot be examined at this stage. 11. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu