1 2025:CGHC:45234-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2699 of 2025 Saroj Shrivas W/o Shyam Shrivas Aged About 38 Years R/o Manjhwapara, Police Station Civil Line District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 04.09. 2025 1. Heard Mr. Rohitashva Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.09.04 18:00:54 +0530 2 “In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash First Information Report dated 05.06.2025 in connection with Crime No.632/2025 registered in Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur (C.G.) under Section 21,22, and 29 of NDPS Act against the petitioner and consequent investigation against the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case, are that, as per the FIR, the police received secret information that Shyam Shrivas and his wife Saroj Shrivas, residents of Talapara, were in possession of intoxicating substances and were searching for customers near Uslapur Railway Station. On reaching the spot, the police allegedly found one suspected lady, served her notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and seized 25 bottles of ONEREX Cough Syrup (Codeine Phosphate), each containing 100 ml, total 2500 ml. Saroj Shrivas allegedly gave a memorandum statement admitting that she and her husband had tried to sell the intoxicating syrup and that her husband fled upon seeing the police vehicle. Accordingly, crime was registered against both Saroj and Shyam Shrivas. The petitioner, however, submits that the police have falsely implicated her. She states that on 05.06.2025 at about 6:30 a.m., police officials came to her house, took her away, and kept her at Civil Line Police Station. Later, at about 10:55 a.m., she was taken to the parking area of Uslapur Railway Station and 3 falsely shown as apprehended with contraband. The petitioner’s brother submitted representations before various authorities including the Superintendent of Police, Inspector General of Police, Human Rights Commission, Director General of Police, Hon’ble Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh, and Hon’ble Chief Justice of Chhattisgarh High Court, alleging that the petitioner was illegally taken from her home and falsely implicated. He also pointed out the existence of CCTV footage and demanded the CCTV footage of Civil Line Police Station, which was denied by the police. The CCTV footage from her own house showing the incident of 05.06.2025 at 6:30 a.m. was illegally seized by the police. When her family members demanded the CCTV footage of Civil Line Police Station for the period between 06:00 a.m. to 08:00 a.m. on 05.06.2025, the same was refused. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application for preservation of CCTV footage of Civil Line Police Station for the period 06:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on 05.06.2025. On 03.07.2025, the learned Special Judge allowed the application and directed the police to preserve the said CCTV footage. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. In fact, on 05.06.2025 at about 6:30 a.m., the police officials forcibly entered the house of the petitioner and took her away. She was kept in Civil Line Police Station and thereafter, at about 10:55 a.m., she was taken to the parking area of Uslapur Railway Station and falsely shown 4 to have been apprehended with contraband. The incident of the petitioner being taken from her house was recorded in the CCTV footage of her neighbour’s house, which has been filed along with Annexure P/2. It is further submitted that the brother of the petitioner immediately wrote letters to several authorities including the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, the Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur, the Human Rights Commission, the Director General of Police, Raipur, the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh and also the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Chhattisgarh High Court, specifically mentioning that the police had illegally and forcefully taken the petitioner from her residence at about 6:30 a.m. on 05.06.2025, which fact is also corroborated by the CCTV footage. Despite demand, the police authorities refused to provide the CCTV footage of Civil Line Police Station for the relevant period, which clearly indicates their mala fide intention to fabricate a false case. It is further submitted that the incident of 6:30 a.m., when the police came to the petitioner’s house, was also captured in the CCTV camera installed at her residence, but the said CCTV footage was illegally seized by the police. When the family members of the petitioner demanded the CCTV footage of Civil Line Police Station for the period between 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. on 05.06.2025, the same was refused. The petitioner thereafter moved an application for preservation of CCTV footage of Civil Line Police Station for the period from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on 05.06.2025 and, by order dated 03.07.2025, the learned Special 5 Judge directed the police to preserve the said CCTV footage. It is therefore prayed that this Court may kindly summon the CCTV footage of 05.06.2025 during the period 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. for perusal of the incident. Learned counsel further submits that the conduct of the police is highly doubtful and illegal, and the manner in which the petitioner was taken from her house and later shown as apprehended near Uslapur Railway Station is wholly concocted. The prosecution story is thus fabricated and not sustainable in law. It is further submitted that respondent No.5 has not approached the police with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. She had earlier approached Mahila Thana, Bilaspur, but concealed this fact and subsequently lodged another report at Police Station Torwa, which was later transferred to Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur. This suppression itself reflects mala fide intention on her part to falsely implicate the petitioner and her family members. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is humbly submitted that no case whatsoever is made out against the petitioner. The entire proceedings are malicious, false and fabricated, and continuation thereof would amount to abuse of the process of law. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that, in compliance with this Court’s order dated 29.08.2025, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, has filed his personal affidavit on 03.09.2025, wherein it is categorically stated that the petitioner and her husband are involved in several criminal cases including 6 violations of the NDPS Act. As per the affidavit, a total of 10 cases (including the present crime) stand registered against the husband under various provisions of the IPC, the Arms Act and the NDPS Act, and 4 cases (including the present crime) stand registered against the petitioner, one of which Crime No. 156/2023 relates to Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. A tabulated list of these antecedents has been annexed as Annexure A/1. It is further pointed out that, having regard to their repeated involvement in NDPS matters, the Station House Officer, P.S. Civil Lines, passed Freezing Order No. 3/2025 dated 12.06.2025 under Section 68-F(2) of the NDPS Act, which was subsequently confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority, SAFEMA/NDPSA, Mumbai, vide order dated 09.07.2025; a copy thereof has been filed as Annexure A/2. 6. Building on the above, learned State counsel contends that the petitioner has suppressed and concealed these material facts in the instant petition as there is no disclosure of her criminal antecedents, of the husband’s antecedents, or of the freezing order and its confirmation. Such suppression of material particulars, it is urged, amounts to abuse of the process of Court and, by itself, warrants dismissal at the threshold, the jurisdiction invoked being extraordinary/inherent and premised on utmost candour. Without prejudice, it is submitted that the present FIR stems from specific prior information recorded in the police station on 05.06.2025, followed by prompt action at Uslapur Railway 7 Station, where the husband fled and from the petitioner’s possession 25 bottles (100 ml each) of Onerex cough syrup containing Codeine Phosphate were seized at a public place in the presence of independent witnesses, after due compliance with legal formalities. The allegations of illegal detention and false implication are, therefore, baseless and contrary to record. On these premises, learned State counsel prays that the instant petition be dismissed and the Investigating Agency be permitted to proceed strictly in accordance with law. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. In compliance of the Court’s order dated 29.08.2025, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) has filed his personal affidavit, relevant portion of which, reads as follows :- “1. That, the petitioner has filed the present petition praying for qashment of the First Information Report dated 05.06.2025 in connection with the crime no. 632 of 2025, registered in Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur under the provisions of section 21, 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 against her. 2. That, in the petitioner the petitioner has alleged that she has been falsely implicated in the case as she was taken by the Police of 8 Police, Civil Lines at 06:30 Am on 05.06.2025 from her house and was made to sit in the Civil Lines, Police Station and thereafter were taken to the Uslapur Railway Station and where a false case has be registered against the petitioner and her husband. 3. That, the matter was listed on 29.08.2025 and after hearing the counsel for the parties and taking note of the allegations leveled by the petitioner, the Hon'ble Court was pleased to direct the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur to file his personal affidavit. Hence, the present affidavit is being filed. 4. That, at the outset the deponent most respectfully submits that he has the highest regards and great respect for the lawful authority of the Hon'ble Court and it's orders, directions and instructions issued from time to time. 5. That, the deponent most respectfully submits that the petitioner submits that the petitioner and her husband are involved in various criminal cases including the case related to the violations of provisions of NDPS Act. It is submitted that total 10 cases including the present crime number have been registered against the husband under the various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Arms Act and NDPS Act and total 4 cases including the present crime number have been registered against the petitioner 9 out of which Crime no. 156 of 2023, relates to section 20 B of the NDPS Act. A copy of the list of cases registered against the petitioner and her husband in Police Station- Civil Lines, is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A/1. 6. It is further most respectfully submitted that looking to the repeated involvement of the petitioner and her husband in cases related to NDPS Act the Station House Officer of Police Station Civil Lines, passed an order with respect to freezing of the assets of the petitioner and her husband, under provisions of section 68 F (2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 on 12.06.2025. It is submitted that the said order was sent for confirmation to the adjudicating authority under the SAFEMA/NDPSA, Mumbai nominated by the Department of Finance, Government of India. It is submitted that the adjudicating authority vide its order dated 09.07.2025 was pleased to confirm the freezing order no. 3/2025. dated 12.06.2025 issued by the Station House Officer, P.S. Civil Lines, Bilaspur. A copy of the order dated 09.07.2025 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A/2. 7. That, in order to prevent illegal trafficking of drugs and other substances, the Police regularly conducts surprise checks and patrolling in the city and especially in those areas where this type of incidents are 10 reported. It is further submitted that the Police of Police Station Civil Lines, has been receiving complaints about the petitioner and her husband, that they are involved in illegal sale of prohibited medicines hence, on 05.06.2025 the patrolling party went to their place to caution them not to carry out this type of activities. It is submitted that the patrolling party interacted with the petitioner only for few seconds and returned back to the police station after completing its patrolling duty. Thus, it is totally wrong on the part of the petitioner to allege that she was taken up by the patrolling party of P.S. Civil Lines, on 05.06.2025 at about 06:30 AM in the morning. 8. That, the deponent most respectfully submits that information was received in the Police Station on 05.06.2025 to the effect that the husband and wife duo are roaming around Uslapur Station carrying a bag made up of cloth which contains some objectionable substances and they are in search of prospective buyers for the same. It is submitted that a Suchna Panchnama was prepared immediately in the Police Station on 05.06.2025 at about 07:25 and after completion of the necessary formalities the Police party visited Uslapur Railway Station wherein the husband and the wife were spotted and the husband immediately ran away from the spot, then the Police party intercepted the petitioner and from her 11 possession total 25 bottles each containing 100 ML of Codeine Phosphate Onerex Cough Syrup was seized. It is submitted that on the basis of the above seizure a FIR was registered under section 21, 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 against the petitioner and her husband and the petitioner was arrested immediately, copy of the FIR has already been filed by the petitioner as Annexure P/1. 9. That, the Deponent most respectfully submits that the Police has acted strictly in accordance with law as the entire proceedings have been carried out at a public place that is Uslapur Railway Station in front of independent witness. It is totally wrong on the part of the petitioner to allege that she has been falsely implicated. That, the Deponent most respectfully submits that he being a senior most officer of the department in the district is duty bound to ensure that the persons who are behind any crime are nabbed and genuine and bonafide persons should not be harassed. 10. That, at the cost of repetition, it is further most respectfully submitted that, the deponent has the highest regard toward the orders passed by the Hon'ble Court and is duty bound to comply with the same.” 9. It transpires from the aforesaid affidavit that the petitioner and her husband are habitual offenders involved in several criminal cases including offences under the NDPS Act, and that a total of 10 12 cases are registered against the husband and 4 cases against the petitioner. It further transpires that an order for freezing of their assets was passed under Section 68-F(2) of the NDPS Act on 12.06.2025, which was duly confirmed by the adjudicating authority on 09.07.2025. The affidavit also discloses that on 05.06.2025, the police, acting on prior information, intercepted the petitioner and her husband near Uslapur Railway Station, where the husband fled from the spot and from the possession of the petitioner 25 bottles of Onerex Cough Syrup, each containing 100 ml of Codeine Phosphate, were seized in the presence of independent witnesses. It has thus been categorically denied that the petitioner was ever taken from her house at 6:30 a.m. on 05.06.2025 as alleged, and it has been emphasized that the entire proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with law at a public place. 10. Upon a comprehensive consideration of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is not persuaded to accept the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner. The substratum of the petitioner’s case is that she was forcibly taken from her residence by the police in the early hours of 05.06.2025 and later falsely implicated by being shown to have been apprehended near Uslapur Railway Station with contraband. However, the affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, in compliance with this Court’s order dated 29.08.2025, categorically 13 denies such allegations and states in clear terms that acting upon specific secret information, the police reached Uslapur Railway Station where the petitioner and her husband were found in suspicious circumstances. On being intercepted, the husband fled from the spot while from the possession of the petitioner, 25 bottles (100 ml each) of Onerex cough syrup containing Codeine Phosphate were seized in the presence of independent witnesses. The said seizure forms the very basis of Crime No. 632/2025, registered under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act. 11. The materials placed further reveal that the petitioner and her husband are not first-time offenders but are persons with a history of criminal antecedents. The affidavit discloses that as many as 10 criminal cases, including those under the provisions of the NDPS Act, have been registered against the husband, and 4 cases including the present one stand registered against the petitioner, one of which pertains to Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. It is also a matter of record that by order dated 12.06.2025, the Station House Officer, Civil Lines, Bilaspur, directed freezing of assets belonging to the petitioner and her husband under Section 68-F(2) of the NDPS Act, and that such order was duly confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai, on 09.07.2025. In the backdrop of these facts, the plea of false implication set up by the petitioner stands on shaky ground and fails to inspire any confidence of this Court. 14 12. Significantly, the petitioner has not disclosed these material particulars in the present petition. Neither the criminal antecedents of herself and her husband, nor the freezing of assets and its confirmation by the competent authority, find mention in the pleadings. Such suppression of vital facts assumes greater significance in the context of the jurisdiction invoked, which is extraordinary and/or inherent, and which necessarily demands the highest degree of candour and fairness. The deliberate omission to disclose such material information constitutes suppression of fact, which by itself amounts to abuse of the process of Court and warrants dismissal of the petition at the very threshold. 13. In the present case, the FIR as well as the seizure memo, supported by the affidavit of the Senior Superintendent of Police, clearly make out a prima facie case under the NDPS Act. The allegations of the petitioner, on the other hand, raise disputed questions of fact, such as the alleged forcible detention from her residence and the alleged fabrication of seizure proceedings. These disputed questions cannot be adjudicated in a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and are matters to be tested during trial on the basis of evidence led by the parties. 14. In the totality of the circumstances, therefore, this Court finds no ground to quash the FIR dated 05.06.2025, registered as Crime 15 No. 632/2025 at Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, or to otherwise interfere with the ongoing investigation. The petition, being devoid of merit and having been founded upon suppression of material facts, is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, clarified that any observation made in this order is confined to the consideration of the present petition and shall not prejudice the rights of the petitioner in the trial, where she shall be at liberty to raise all permissible grounds available to her in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu