1 2025:CGHC:33952-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2246 of 2025 Firoz S/o. Moh. Farukh, Aged About 47 Years R/o Nawagrh, Near Harsagar Talab Ambikapur, District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Ambikapur, District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) 2 Xyz Nil ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naveen Shukla and Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate For Respondent /State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 18/07/2025 1. Heard Mr. Naveen Shukla and Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, learned JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.07.18 19:16:16 +0530 2 counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. 2. The instant CRMP has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C with the following prayer:- “1. To kindly quash the FIR with respect to the petitioner bearing Crime No. 644/2014 dated 01.12.2014 registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) for the offences punishable U/s 452, 354 of IPC. 2. To further may kindly quash the Final Report (Charge Sheet) No. 03/2015 dated 08.02.2015 for the offence punishable U/s 452, 354 of IPC with respect to the petitioner filed by the Police Station Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Ambikapur, District Sarguja, C.G. 3. To kindly quash the order of taking cognizance with respect to the petitioner by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) dated 24.11.2014 and the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the Criminal Case No. 861/2015 between "State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Sanjay Singh & others" pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.). 3 4. And to kindly grant any other relief to the petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted to the petitioner.” 3. Facts of the case in brief is that, the complainant/respondent No. 2 has filed an application U/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate District Sarguja (C.G.) on 18.06.2014. In the said application the complainant/respondent no. 2 has alleged that on 23.05.2014 at about 9.00 P.M. the present petitioner along with two other accused persons namely Sanjay Singh & Irfan Ansari forcefully entered her house and co-accused namely Sanjay Singh started abusing her in filthy language and thereafter the present petitioner and one other co-accused started touching her inappropriately and tried to outrage her modesty and when she raised alarm by shouting, the neighbours came and all the accused persons fled away. After the said incident, complainant/ respondent No. 2 went to police station in order to lodge an F.I.R. against the present petitioner and other two accused persons but the concerned police station finding no substance in the report of the complainant/respondent no. 2 refused to register the FIR. 4. Thereafter, she filed an application U/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The said application was rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 05.08.2014 with a finding that there was a previous disputes 4 between both the parties. Against the said order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate the complainant/ respondent No. 2 preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge Ambikapur on 22.08.2014 and the same was allowed vide order dated 12.11.2014 passed in Criminal Revision No. 34/2014 setting aside the order dated 05.08.2014 passed by the learned CJM and the Court of Sessions vide order dated 12.11.2014 directed the learned CJM to pass an appropriate order keeping in mind observations made and direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 110 & 111 of Lalita Kumari's Case and further directed the complainant/ respondent No. 2 to appear before the Court on 24.11.2014. In compliance of the order passed by the learned Sessions Court, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the Station House Officer Ambikapur to register FIR against the petitioner and two other accused persons and after investigation to file the final report before the Court. Incompliance of the order passed by the learned Court of CJM on 08.02.2015 the concerned Police Station filed a closure report and submitted the same before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, which has been rejected by the CJM holding that prima facie case is made out for taking cognizance of offence under Section 452, 354, 506-B IPC against the accused persons. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the present petitioner has been implicated with the sole intention of extorting 5 money. They further submit that as the criminal proceedings have been stayed in the petition filed by the co-accused Sanjay Singh, the petitioner was not aware of the fact that the criminal case is pending against him. They further submits that there are criminal cases pending against the complainant and her husband itself. They further submits that the complainant had a habit of lodging false case against the innocent persons like the petitioner herein and the case against the co-accused has also been quashed by this court in CRMP NO. 386 of 2017. 6. Per Contra, learned State counsel oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that FIR has been registered and final report has already been filed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 8. From perusal of the pleadings it transpires that bailable and non- bailable warrants have been issued against the petitioner and thus the submission made by the petitioner that he has no knowledge about the criminal case pending does not stand and further the plea taken by the petitioner that the co-accused has preferred CRMP No. 386 of 2017 and the same has been allowed and the FIR has been quashed against him can not be a ground for filing of this petition. As perusal of the documents shows that the co- accused had approached this court with different footing stating that the complainant herself has moved an application for deleting 6 the name of co-accused Sanjay Singh stating that she has mistaken the co-accused with another person and has wrongly taken his name in the FIR. Thus, the case of the petitioner is different from the case of the co-accused Sanjay Singh. 9. Thus, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the final report has already been filled against the petitioner and it cannot be said that the impugned FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence, thus, at this stage, we do not find it a fit case to interfere. 10. Accordingly, the present CRMP is dismissed, at motion stage. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ $ Bhilwar