1 2025:CGHC:40416-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1895 of 2024 1 Nimeshwar Verma S/o Balram Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Opposite Shankar Hyundai Showroom, Pragati Nagar, Mowa, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 Bhisham Verma S/o Lt. Daiwa Ram Verma Aged About 39 Years R/o Rajdhani Vihar, Saddu, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Rajendra Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 Numan Singh Verma S/o Hira Lal Verma Aged About 45 Years R/o 14-Dh Pocket, Sector- Maroda, Bhilai Nagar District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Ms. Soumya Sharma, P.L. For Respondent(s) No. 02 : Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.08.13 10:34:48 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12/08/2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of CrPC for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No. 303/2022 registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC at Police Station Rajendra Nagar, Raipur. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that, on 22.09.2022 a report was lodged by respondent No. 2/ complainant against the petitioners that on account of some business dispute, petitioner No. 1 called the respondent No. 2/ complainant in the office and they abused and threatened to kill him. Then, the FIR No. 303/2022 has been registered by Police Station – Rajendra Nagar, Raipur under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC against the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated. He further submits that petitioners and respondent No. 2/ complainant are relatives and complainant requested to join their business 3 and thereafter they had some dispute over the profit sharing. He further submits that no medical examination regarding the beating by the petitioners was done and it is a family and civil dispute which has been given the criminal nature. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that the FIR discloses a clear cognizable offence and is supported by a sequence of events involving criminal intimidation, abuse and physical assault made by the petitioners against the respondent No. 2/ complainant. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties; perused the impugned FIR; and the materials available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly considering the fact that the petitioners and complainant are relative and were having business transactions and dispute over profit sharing, prima facie, no case is made out against the petitioners and criminal proceeding is manifestly attended against the petitioners with malafide, therefore, initiation of criminal proceeding is nothing, but an abuse of process of law. 7. Considering overall the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the petitioner has made out strong case for quashing of FIR. Accordingly, FIR bearing Crime No. 4 303/2022 registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC at Police Station Rajendra Nagar Raipur (C.G.) is hereby quashed. 8. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ Shoaib