1 2025:CGHC:35383-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2232 of 2025 1 - Chaman Prakash Banjare S/o Ramdulare Aged About 27 Years 2 - Jai Prakash Banjare S/o Ramdulare Aged About 21 Years Both are R/o Village Gujiyabodh P.S. Hasaud District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Hasaud Distt- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 2 - Deepak Kumar Lahre S/o Gopal Prashad Lahre R/o Village Gujiyabodh P.S. Hasaud Distt- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 23/07/2025 1 Heard Mr. Akhtar Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. 2 By this petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners seek quashing of the charge sheet No. 2 22/2020 dated 19.02.2020 registered in connection with Crime No. 08/2020, under Sections 294, 506(B), 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Hasaud, District Janjgir-Champa and the order dated 05.03.2020 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, has taken cognizance of the matter in Criminal Case No. 49/2020 against the petitioners. 3 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant/respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR at Police Station, Hasaud, District Janjgir-Champa on 21.01.2020 bearing Crime No. 0008/2020 for the offences under Sections 294, 506(B), 323 and 34 of the IPC alleging that when he had gone in search of a calf belonging to him, the petitioners, who had old animosity with him, started spitting on the ground and when the complainant objected to it, Chaman Banjare called his brother Jai Prakash Banjare after making a phone call and thereafter they both hurled abuses and started assaulting him with hands, fists, slipper and a stick. 4 Mr. 4 Mr. Akhtar Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the FIR was lodged way back on 21.01.2020 and after filing of the charge sheet by the police on 19.02.2020, charges were framed against the petitioners on 25.02.2021 but thereafter, there is no progress in the trial as neither the prosecution witnesses nor the complainant himself is turning up before the learned trial Court and unnecessarily the petitioners are being harassed for no rhyme or reason. The entire story of assault made by the petitioners is false and in fact no such incident had occurred. Since the family of both petitioners and complainant were not in talking terms, a verbal duel has been tried to be given a colour of criminal offence. Speedy trial is an essential ingredient of reasonable fair and just procedure guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. He 3 relies on the decision of the Apex Court in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar {1979 Cri.L.J. 1045}. As such, he prays for quashing of the FIR, the charge sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings. 5 On the other hand, Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that the investigation in the matter has already been completed and charge sheet has also been filed. It is now for the learned trial Court concerned to proceed with the matter. 6 We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7 On the last date of hearing, this Court had directed the Superintendent of Police, Sakti to ensure the presence of the complainant/respondent No. 2 before this Court either in person or through his counsel as the learned trial Court had also issued bailable warrant against him for his appearance but he was not turning up. 8 Pursuant to the above direction, it is informed by the learned State counsel that the Police of Police Station, Hasaud, has tried to serve notice to the complainant/respondent No. 2 however, it has been reported that he is not residing on his address for the last one month and has gone some where for earning his livelihood. 9 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 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 4 powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 10 In a well-celebrated judgment reported in State of Haryana & Others v Bhajanlal & Others, {AIR 1992 SC 604} the Apex Court has laid down certain guidelines and held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The 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 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. 5 (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.” 11 Speedy trial is also one of the facets of justice delivery system. An accused is also entitled for speedy trial as unnecessary delay in conclusion of the trial leads to loss of faith in judiciary. After making the complaint, the complainant himself has gone missing without even informing the concerned Police Station when he was fully aware that the proceedings are pending before the trial Court concerned. It appears that entire criminal proceeding is initiated with malafide intention with an ulterior motive due to private and personal grudge. Had the incident which the complainant has report, actually happened, he would have been interested in prosecuting the petitioners at the earliest whereas, the fact of the matter is that he is not at all desirous of conclusion of the trial and has gone somewhere to earn his livelihood. The present case falls under clause (7) of the decision of the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal (supra). 12 In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to quash the charge sheet No. 22/2020, dated 19.02.2020 registered in connection with Crime No. 08/2020 for the 6 offences under Sections 295, 506(B), 323, 34 of the IPC at Police Station, Hasaud, District Janjgir-Champa, the order dated 05.03.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa as also the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 49/2020, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa. It is ordered accordingly. 13 Consequently, this petition stands allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.07.24 12:03:37 +0530