1 2025:CGHC:29300-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2027 of 2025 1 Mahendra Singh S/o Balwan Singh Aged About 26 Years R/o Village - Semariya, Janpad Panchayat Lormi, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O., P.S. - Lormi, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2 Jitendra Singh Rajput S/o Baran Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Panchayat - Semariya, Tahsil - Lormi, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 01/07/2025 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.07.02 10:26:56 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Khulesh Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. 2. By this petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S the petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s): “I1. That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire Records pertaining to the FIR No. 132/2025, dated 21.03.2025, registered at Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, for offences punishable under Sections 296, 3(5), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 2. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned FIR No. 132/2025, dated 21.03.2025, registered at Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, for offences punishable under Sections 296, 3(5), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 3.That this Hon'ble Court may kindly pass any other order in favour of petitioner as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the complainant defeated the petitioner in the Gram Panchayat elections. It is further alleged that on 28.02.2025, between 6-7 AM, the petitioner and his father, Balwan Singh, entered into the complainant's house, abused him in filthy language, and threatened to kill him, saying, "I will not let you remain Sarpanch for five years, I will kill you." The alleged incident was purportedly witnessed by Priya Das, Rajesh Kumar, Ashwani, 3 and Mahavir. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged against the petitioner. 4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has contested sarpanch election against respondent No. 2. It is further stated that the petitioner has made certain complaint against the said respondent before the election commission that he has encroached certain government land on which the SDO had ordered the patwari to submit his report. In the report submitted by the patwari, it was observed that respondent No. 2 has encroached over government land. It is further submitted that though petitioner lost sarpanch election against respondent No. 2 but as the petitioner has made certain complaints before the election commission against respondent No. 2 in retaliation the respondent No. 2 has lodged the present FIR against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is a practicing lawyer and this FIR is only a counterblast to the election petition filed by the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent/ State opposes the prayer made and submits that the matter requires investigation. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 7. During the course of hearing when particular query was made to the learned counsel for the petitioner about the proceedings initiated against respondent No. 2, whether any case was 4 registered or any revenue proceeding was pending he submits that till date no case has been registered against him. 8. This goes to show that the petitioner himself had intervene and could not save himself as he could not digest the fact that he lost the election. Further, considering the fact that the offences are bailable in nature and the matter requires investigation, this Court does not find any good ground to quash the FIR at this stage. However, it is obligatory that the trial be brought to a logical end expeditiously. 9. Accordingly, the present CRMP deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ $ Bhilwar