1 2025:CGHC:48270-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 394 of 2024 Brijesh Kumar Yadav S/o Late Shri Rampher Yadav Aged About 42 Years R/o Tulsi Nagar, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Line Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Pravin Ratnaparkhi, S/o Prabhakar Ratnaparkhi, Aged About 43 Years R/o Lig 95, Pandit Ravi Shukla Nagar, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPCR No. 412 of 2024 Umesh Yadav S/o Shri Kamlesh Yadav, Aged About 31 Years R/o Tulsi Nagar, Korba, District-Korba, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Station House Officer, Police Station- Civil Line Korba, District-Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Pravin Ratnaparkhi S/o Prabhakar Ratnaparkhi, Aged About 43 Years R/o Lig 95, Pandit Ravi Shukla Nagar, District-Korba, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.09.23 10:54:38 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. and Mr. Ashutosh Biswas, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 19.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned counsel for respondent / State and Mr. Ashutosh Biswas, learned counsel for complainant. 2. The petitioner has filed this WPCR No. 394 / 2024 with the following prayer: “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to registration of offence against the petitioner for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to quash the FIR (Annexure P/1) bearing Crime No. 0527/2024 registered against the petitioner at Police Station Civil Line, Korba on 03.09.2024 for offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 310(2), 333, and 351(2) of BNS, 2023. 10.3 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 3 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. The petitioner has filed this WPCR No. 412 / 2024 with the following prayer: “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to registration of offence against the petitioner for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to quash the FIR (Annexure P/1) bearing Crime No. 0527/2024 registered against the petitioner at Police Station Civil Line, Korba on 03.09.2024 for offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 310(2), 333, and 351(2) of BNS, 2023. 10.3 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief facts of WPCR No. 394 of 2024 are that the petitioner is a partner in the cable network business originally operating under the name “M/s Vande Mataram Cable Network,” which was later allegedly rebranded as “Vande Mataram CCN Shark Network.” Over the years, multiple partnership deeds were executed documenting the admission, retirement, and shareholding of various partners, including the petitioner. Disputes arose between 4 the partners regarding control and management of the firm. On 02.09.2024, the petitioner visited the office of the partnership firm to address customer complaints regarding non-transmission of channels and to resolve ongoing disputes between the partners. The FIR in question (FIR No. 0527/2024) alleges that the petitioner, along with others, forcibly entered the office, physically assaulted Respondent No. 2, and looted several items. The petitioner denies these allegations, asserting that on the date of the incident, he was himself assaulted by respondent No. 2 and his associates, sustaining grievous injuries including a fracture of the right hand. Evidence of injuries and a counter-FIR filed by the petitioner’s elder brother have been submitted. Prior to the incident, the petitioner had made repeated attempts to resolve the dispute amicably and had also filed complaints regarding the hostile takeover of the partnership firm by certain partners. No action was taken on these complaints, which prompted the petitioner to personally intervene on 02.09.2024. It is contended that the impugned FIR is malicious, fabricated, and filed solely to give a criminal color to what is essentially a civil/business dispute between the partners. Hence this petition. 5. Brief facts of WPCR No. 412 of 2024 are that the petition has been filed seeking quashment of FIR No. 0527/2024, which alleges that on 02.09.2024, at around 10:30 AM, the petitioner, along with a few others, entered the office of respondent No. 2, physically assaulted and verbally abused him and his partners, 5 and looted certain items including 2 splicing machines, 2 OTDs, 3 diamond cutters, 1 battery charger, 1 battery, 2 power meters, 1 camera DVR, and locks. It is further stated that the police did not conduct any preliminary enquiry, record statements, or make any investigation prior to registering the FIR. It is submitted that in 2001, the petitioner’s uncle, along with Mr. Arvind Singh Gulati and other partners, commenced the cable network business in Korba, Chhattisgarh. The business was subsequently registered as a partnership firm under the name “M/s Vande Mataram Cable Network” on 13.03.2015, with Mr. Randheer Pandey as the Managing/Authorized Partner. Between 2015 and 2023, multiple revised partnership deeds were executed, recording the rights and shares of the petitioner’s uncle and other partners. Between 2023 and 2024, due to disagreements among the partners, Mr. Arvind Singh Gulati allegedly took hostile control of the partnership firm by changing the IDs and passwords of the Dash SMS system. He subsequently entered into a separate partnership arrangement with respondent No. 2 and others, and commenced operating the business under the name “Vande Mataram CCN Network.” The petitioner’s uncle made repeated attempts to amicably resolve the dispute and also filed complaints with the police regarding the illegal control of the partnership business; however, no action was taken. On 02.09.2024, he visited the office to confront respondent No. 2 and others regarding complaints from customers about non-transmission of 6 channels. It is at this stage that respondent No. 2, along with Mr. Pravin Ratnaparkhi, Rajesh Sharma, and Suraj, allegedly assaulted the petitioner’s uncle and threatened him with death. The FIR was registered against the petitioner, despite his having no active role in the incident. It is contended that the petitioner’s uncle, having been illegally ousted from his own partnership firm, had a lawful right to enter the office. The petitioner’s name appears in the FIR only because of his close familial relationship with his uncle, Shri Brijesh Kumar Yadav. The partnership deeds and rent agreements submitted demonstrate the petitioner’s uncle’s entitlement to access the office, and there is no basis for allegations of looting. Accordingly, the FIR is prima facie false and malicious. Hence this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR bearing Crime No. 0527/2024 dated 03.09.2024, lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2 against the petitioners for offences under Sections 115(2), 296, 310(2), 333, and 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is entirely false, fabricated, and without any factual or legal foundation. It is contended that the FIR has been lodged with the mala fide intention of taking vengeance against the petitioners and to demean and humiliate him in the eyes of society. It is further submitted that the petitioners, being a long- standing partner of the firm since 2001, visited the office on 02.09.2024 to resolve an ongoing civil dispute regarding the control and management of the partnership business, and in the 7 course of this legitimate intervention, they was brutally assaulted by respondent No. 2, namely, Pravin Ratnaparkhi, Rajesh Sharma, Suraj and other partners and employees of the firm. As a consequence of this assault, the petitioners sustained grievous injuries, including a fractures, thereby clearly establishing that he was the victim rather than the aggressor. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners emphasizes that the petitioners, having been partners in the firm for over 23 years, had every lawful right to access the office premises to attend to business operations and ensure the smooth functioning of services for customers thus, the allegation of looting is manifestly false, untenable, and impractical, as no partner can be said to loot his own firm. Further, it is submitted that certain partners, including respondent No. 2, had taken illegal and hostile control over the business, wrongfully ousting the petitioners from the firm which he and his family had built over decades, and that the FIR was lodged to create a false narrative that the complainant is the victim while shielding the actual offenders, allegedly leveraging political influence. Learned counsel also pointed out that the police, without conducting any preliminary enquiry or verification, registered the FIR, and after registration, no notice under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or any intimation was provided to the petitioners, thereby reflecting malafide action and harassment. No investigation has been initiated, and any subsequent filing of a charge-sheet under Section 173 of the 8 CrPC would amount to harassment. In light of the above, and considering that there is no evidence against the petitioners indicating his involvement in any criminal activity, it is submitted that the impugned FIR is wholly misconceived, vexatious, and violative of the petitioners’ fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and therefore deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice. It is also contended that the FIR was filed to create a false narrative portraying the complainant as the victim, allegedly using political influence to shield the real offenders. The registration of the FIR without any preliminary enquiry, verification, or intimation to the petitioner demonstrates malafide intent and harassment, and no investigation has been carried out, making any prospective filing of a charge-sheet under Section 173 of the CrPC an act of further harassment. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), which empowers this Court to quash criminal proceedings instituted on false and malafide grounds. In view of the foregoing, learned counsel submits that the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 / complainant submits that the petitions filed by the petitioners for quashing FIR No. 0527/2024 is misconceived and seeks to pre-empt the ongoing investigation. The petitioners, leveraging political influence and police backing through Shri Ajay 9 Yadav (IGP), have allegedly engaged in aggressive and unlawful conduct, including assault, vandalism, and intimidation, as captured in CCTV and video footage. The petitioners claim partnership rights over the business, but documentary evidence, including partnership and rent agreements, demonstrates no such entitlement, and the alleged acts cannot be justified under any civil agreement. Multiple prior complaints triggered the petitioners’ aggressive actions. It is well-settled that an accused has no right to be heard prior to registration of a FIR, and the High Court must exercise restraint under Sections 226/482 Cr.P.C., allowing investigation to reach its logical conclusion. Judicial precedents, including Habibulla Jilani, Munshi Ram, Neeharika Infrastructure, and Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari, reaffirm that interim orders restraining investigation or granting preemptive relief are impermissible. The petitioners are free to raise defenses or seek discharge under Sections 227/239 Cr.P.C. during trial. Given these facts, the petition is filed to mislead the Court, and no grounds exist for quashing the FIR; the same should be dismissed in the interest of justice. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the registration of the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 0527/2024 dated 03.09.2024 was in accordance with law, based on the complaint lodged by respondent No. 2, who alleged that the petitioners, along with others, had entered the office premises of the partnership firm on 02.09.2024 and committed offences 10 punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 310(2), 333, and 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is submitted that the FIR is neither frivolous nor filed with any malafide intent but was necessitated by a genuine grievance raised by respondent No. 2 regarding physical assault, verbal abuse, and alleged misappropriation of office equipment. It is also submitted that any disputes regarding ownership, partnership rights, or control of the firm are essentially civil in nature, and the FIR does not preclude the petitioners from defending themselves during the course of the investigation. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with this petitions. 11. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down the principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first information report and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the report, their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised, which are as under: - “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law 11 enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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 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 155(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. 12 (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 ever 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. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 12. Having carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent/State, and respondent No. 2, and after perusal of the records appended with the petitions, this Court finds that the FIR bearing Crime No. 0527/2024 registered at Police Station Civil Line, Korba, appears 13 to have been lodged maliciously and without any real basis. The allegations relate to a civil/business dispute concerning the control and management of a partnership firm and do not demonstrate the essential elements of the offences alleged under Sections 115(2), 296, 310(2), 333, and 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 13. The petitioners have been long-standing partners in the firm since its inception and have a lawful right to access the office premises to attend to business operations. The submissions, supported by documentary evidence, establish that the petitioners were intervening in the firm’s affairs to resolve legitimate business and customer-related issues. On the date of the alleged incident, the petitioners themselves were assaulted by respondent No. 2 and other partners/employees, sustaining grievous injuries, including fractures. 14. The FIR, therefore, appears to be vexatious, fabricated, and intended to harass the petitioners, particularly in light of the fact that no preliminary enquiry was conducted, no verification of facts was undertaken, and no notice was served prior to registration of the FIR. The registration of the FIR without any investigation or verification demonstrates a mala fide intent and constitutes a misuse of the criminal process to give a false color of legality to what is essentially a civil dispute between the partners. 15. The Court also notes that the petitioners have placed on record 14 multiple partnership deeds, rent agreements, and prior complaints showing their lawful entitlement to intervene in the business operations of the firm. No independent material has been placed on record to substantiate allegations of looting or criminal trespass by the petitioners. 16. The principles laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra), clearly authorize this Court to exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash criminal proceedings which are maliciously instituted, vexatious, or prima facie frivolous, particularly where the proceedings are used as a tool for harassment rather than to serve justice. 17. In the present case, allowing the FIR to continue would lead to serious prejudice to the petitioners, exposing them to harassment, unnecessary litigation, and infringement of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The FIR is prima facie devoid of any evidence against the petitioners and therefore, in the interest of justice, equity, and fair play, it is appropriate that this Court exercises its power to quash the FIR. 18. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have been unnecessarily and erroneously impleaded, and continuation of criminal proceedings against them would amount to abuse of process of law. 19. For the foregoing reasons, FIR No. 0527/2024 dated 03.09.2024 for the offences punishable under Section 115(2), 296, 310(2), 15 333 and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station Civil Line, Korba, against the petitioners is hereby quashed. 20. Both the petitions WPCR No. 394 of 2024 and WPCR No. 412 of 2024 are allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet