1 2025:CGHC:34825-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2664 of 2024 1 - Randir Kumar Singh S/o Late Gaya Singh Aged About 44 Years R/o E-10 Sector-2, Agro Society, Raipura, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rajiv Kumar Singh Alias Pappu Singh S/o Radha Singh Aged About 37 Years R/o E-10 Sector-2, Agro Society, Raipura, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ashok Singh S/o Rajkumar Aged About 57 Years R/o Ward No. 9, Professor Colony, Kawarda, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The S.H.O. Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Durga Prasad Agrawal S/o Vishwa Kumar Agrawal Aged About 45 Years R/o House No. 49, Wallfort City, Batgawa Thana Purani Basti, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mateen Siddique, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 22/07/2025 1 Heard Mr. Mateen Siddique, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2 2 By this petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the FIR dated 31.03.2024 and charge sheet dated 30.05.2024 in Crime No. 248/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34, 186, 332 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Telibandha, District Raipur as also the order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, in Case No. 10329/2024. 3 As per the prosecution, on 29.03.2024 around 03:10 p.m. when the respondent No. 2 was at the Abkari (Excise) Bhawan, Labhandi, District Raipur, to participate in tender process of liquor transport. The respondent No. 2 was successful in obtaining a tender with respect to transportation of liquor in respect of Dhamtari and Raipur. After the tender process, Ashok Singh called the respondent No. 2 outside the building and stating that he was spoiling the tender rate by quoting low rate started assaulting him alongwith Randhir Singh, Papu Singh and other persons. They hurled abuses also and threatened him to be done to death. When the friends of respondent No. 2 came to rescue him, the petitioners fled away. After registration of the FIR and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the present petitioners which is sought to be challenged herein. 4 Mr. Mateen Siddique, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that there is a delay of two days in lodging the FIR without any explanation. As per initial FIR, offences under Section 294, 323 and 506 of the IPC were registered but only to harass the petitioners, the offences under Sections 186 and 332 IPC were added later so as to make the incident look more serious. In fact, it is a case of business rivalry and mere an incident of verbal duel has been given a colour of assault. The petitioners had not committed any offence as alleged. 3 5 On the other hand, Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that when the information given by the respondent No. 2 disclosed commission of cognizable offence, the FIR was registered and after investigation, the charge sheet has been filed before the competent Court and now it is for the Court concerned to proceed with the matter further. 6 Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/complainant submits that the prayer made in this petition is defective and from perusal of the materials available on record, it is apparent that the petitioners had committed an offence of assault and threat against the complainant. He opposes this petition and prays for its dismissal. 7 We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8 This Court, vide order dated 03.10.2024 had granted an interim protection to the petitioners by staying the further proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 10329/2024. 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 powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 4 10 In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others {2021 SCC OnLine SC 315}, the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merits. 11 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. 5 (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. (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.” 12 It is an admitted position that both the petitioners and the complainant are business rivals as they both were bidders and in the course of bidding process, the scuffle took place between the parties when the petitioners lost the tender. However, as much time has elapsed after registration of the FIR and no fruitful purpose would be served if the criminal proceedings are allowed to be continued against the petitioners, we deem it appropriate to quash the FIR, the charge sheet and the consequential Criminal Case arising out the said charge sheet. 13 Accordingly, FIR bearing No. 284/2024 dated 31.03.2024, registered at Police Station, Telibandha, District Raipur, the charge sheet bearing No. 269/2024 dated 30.05.2024 for the offences under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34, 186 and 332 of the IPC as well as the 6 consequential proceedings being Criminal Case No. 10329/2024, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, so far it relates to the petitioners-Randir Kumar Singh, Rajiv Kumar Singh alias Pappu Singh and Ashok Singh, are quashed. 14 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: 2025.07.23 12:22:57 +0530