1 2025:CGHC:3259-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1624 of 2019 Chandramani Dev S/o Late Shri P.D. Kurre Aged About 47 Years R/o Ambedkar Ward, Near Ratna Pariskar Kendra, Jagdalpur, Police Station- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar Chhattisgarh. Posted At Late P.D. Kurre, Government Agriculture College, Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Malkharoda, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Keshav Pandey S/o Om Prakash Pandey Aged About 21 Years R/o Village- Besesara, Post- Khudhari, Tahsil And Police Station- Pendra, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Presently residing at Boys Hostel, Agriculture College, Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Shailendra Sharma, PL. GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.01.20 11:14:16 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 17/01/2025 1. Heard Shri Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. 2. The instant CRMP has been filed by the petitioner for following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the FIR (Crime No.322/18) registered at Police Station-Janjgir, Dist- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) as well as entire charge sheet filed against the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.06.2018 the complainant namely Keshav Pandey S/o Shri Om Prakash Pandey, had lodged written complaint at Police Station, Janjgir, District-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) alleging that he is studying in B.Sc First Year at Government Agriculture College, at Janjgir, Dist- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). He further alleged that on 26/04/2018 Professor of his College, namely Chandramani Dev (petitioner herein), by using mobile shared a post through his face book account, which was posted by one R.K. Goutam, in which filthy words relating to Hindu Gods were posted and it was posted with intention to malicious acts to outrage religious feeling of Hindu religion. Thereby, the 3 petitioner/accused has committed the offence which is punishable under Section 295-A of Indian Penal Code. On the basis of complaint made by the complainant, the concerned police officer started the investigation and registered a Crime bearing FIR No. 322/2018 against the petitioner and during the investigation seized documents used relating to commission of offence and statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and after completion of the investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer has filed a charge-sheet before the Trial Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed or participated in any offence mentioned in the FIR. He would submit that FIR is delayed by 35 days and it is a clear indication of malafide intention and a pre-planned conspiracy hatched by the complainant, students, and staff members of the college. It is further submitted that the petitioner's mobile phone was misused by the complainant or someone else, as he went to attend natures call keeping his mobile on charging. It is further submitted that this allegation is supported by a letter dated 28.04.2018, addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Janjgir- Champa (C.G.), informing about the misuse of the petitioner's mobile phone by Professor Dr. K.N.S. Banafar and other students and staff members. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner, a Professor at Agriculture College Janjgir, has been falsely implicated in this case due to a departmental dispute with 4 Professor Dr. K.N.S. Banafar and other staff members. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner's arrest and detention have caused irreparable harm to his reputation and career, therefore he prays for quashing of the FIR. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that after considering all the aspects of the matter and the material available on records, the action has been taken by the concerned police authorities on the basis of the complaint made by the complainant against the present petitioner and the same is proper, legal, strictly in accordance with law and within the jurisdiction and there is no infirmity or illegality in the same. Therefore, it is submitted that the present petition being devoid of any merit and substance, deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 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 about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. The Supreme Court has emphasised that though the court has the 5 power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 8. In the instant case, from the perusal of the FIR lodged by the complainant, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. The contention which has been raised by the petitioner that false case has been made out, this can only be adjudicated after leading evidence and it is a subject matter of trial. The present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned FIR. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the FIR. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perusing the documents appended with the petition and the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference in this petition. 10.Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice gouri