1 2025:CGHC:35238-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2283 of 2025 Neeraj Choubey S/o Prakash Choubey Aged About 52 Years R/o Rishabh Green City, Durg, P.S. Pulgaon, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Of Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Shyam Sharma S/o Radheshyam Sharma Aged About 50 Years R/o H.No. P/5, Rishabh Green City, Durg, P.S. Pulgaon, District Durg (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 22/07/2025 SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.07.23 10:37:41 +0530 2 1. The instant CRMP has been filed by the petitioner with the following reliefs:- “A. The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR bearing No. 255/2025 registered at P.S.- Pulgaon, District Durg (C.G.) dated 07.7.2025 at 00:28 hours under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 281, 125(a), 109 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 184 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 registered against the petitioner. B. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which it deems fit and proper.” 2. Facts of the case are that the complainant and the petitioner are residents of same locality. The complaint was filed on 6.7.2025 alleging that at around 8:30 PM the petitioner was coming in his car bearing registration No. CG 07 CY 7235 and started honking in front of the house of the complainant. At that time, the children of the complainant came out and the petitioner started abusing them and threatened them. The petitioner also hit the scooty of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant came out from his house and found that the petitioner was in an inebriated condition and started assaulting the complainant and tried to run over him with his car. The complainant thereafter called his brother-in-law who intervened in the matter however the petitioner also abused him. According to CCTV footage of the place of incident, the scooty of the complainant was parked in the middle of the road and the petitioner could not move his car therefore, the petitioner 3 requested the complainant to move aside the vehicle however, the son of the complainant came out of his house and parked the scooty in the middle of the road after which the petitioner came out of his car and moved the scooty himself. By then the complainant came out of the house and started abusing the petitioner and intentionally stood in front of the car of the petitioner thereby restraining the way of the petitioner. After creating a lot of ruckus and after intervention of the people from the society the petitioner could move his car. It is also clear from the order dated 8.7.2025 passed by Sessions Jude, Durg, District Durg in B.A. No. 897/2025 while deciding the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner, the medical report received from District Hospital, Durg stated that no external injury is seen on the body of the complainant. It is also stated that the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Court vide order dated 08/07/2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complainant has lodged the FIR on the basis of bald and vague allegations against the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner is facing trial and it is also stated that without any cogent evidence, the petitioner being a practicing lawyer has been roped in the present case. He further submits that the police authorities are acting in a biased manner owing to political influence of the complainant. He also submitted that according to the CCTV 4 footage, there is no incident has ever been occurred and also according to the medical report, there is not even an abrasion has been found on the body of the complainant and also submitted that there is no ingredient of Section 307 of the IPC, hence the present petition may be allowed by setting aside the impugned FIR. 4. Per Contra, learned State counsel would oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Prima-facie, this Court found that there are several allegations against the petitioner regarding the abuse and creating ruckus and dispute in the society. Thus, It is quite vivid that the petitioner is involved in the present case and there are also several allegations against the petitioner that at the time of alleged incident, he was in an intoxicated condition and dashed the scooty of the complainant and also abused and assaulted the complainant and his family members, which requires proper investigation by the investigating agency. 7. Considering the entire facts situation of the case, at this stage, it is not proper for this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner as such, this Court does not find any good ground to quash the FIR. However, it is obligatory that the investigation be brought to a logical end expeditiously and the Investigation Officer 5 is directed to submit a police report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC (Now Section 193(3) of the BNSS) before the Magistrate concerned. 8. In view of the above, the instant CRMP is rejected at the motion stage. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S. Bhilwar/ Jyoti