1 2025:CGHC:44504-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2735 of 2025 Rajkumar Singh Porte S/o Tarachand Porte, Aged About 52 Years Occupation- Government Teacher, Posted At Middle School Chanchidand, Kotrahi, Permanent Residence Bhodar, Rooppur, P.S. Basantpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House P.S. Basantpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) 2 - Mamta Bhagat W/o Sonsai Ram Toppo, Occupation- Patwari, Posted At Tahsil Office Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms Kaushalya Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/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 2.9.2025 1. Heard Ms Kaushalya Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No.1/State. BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.09.02 17:41:15 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer:- “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly allow this petition and set-aside quash the FIR/Crime No.114/2025 dated 17.06.2025 against the petitioner under Section 132, 231, 296, 351(2) of BNS in the police station Basantpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are that on 30.05.2025, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Wadrafnagar, issued an order for demarcation of the land belonging to Ramdular. In pursuance of the said order, on 04.06.2025 at about 11:00 A.M., the complainant proceeded to village Rooppur (Bhodar) for demarcation of the land bearing Khasra No. 994, area measuring 0.39 hectares. During the course of demarcation, petitioner Rajkumar was present at the spot along with landowner Ramdular and other villagers. It is alleged that petitioner Rajkumar started abusing the complainant in indecent language and uttered the words, and also threatened. By such conduct, the petitioner not only misbehaved with the complainant but also obstructed her in discharge of her official duty by issuing threats. Consequently, FIR in Crime No.114/2025 under Sections 132, 231, 296, and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Basantpur. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and Ramdular are cousin brothers, their lands being adjacent ancestral property. On 04.06.2025 demarcation of khasra No. 994 was carried 3 out by the Patwari without issuing prior notice to the petitioner or neighboring landholders, which is a mandatory procedure. When the petitioner came to know of the same, he reached the spot and objected, upon which a verbal altercation took place and subsequently Ramdular and his companions assaulted the petitioner and his father, forcing them to act in self-defence. Since no serious injury was caused, no complaint was lodged by the petitioner, but Ramdular, being politically influential, pressurized the Patwari to falsely implicate the petitioner. Initially, the Patwari herself declined to lodge a report, admitting that such disputes are common during demarcation, however under pressure, a false case was registered on 05.06.2025 before the Executive Magistrate under Sections 170/126 and 135(3) BNSS. The petitioner was arrested on 16.06.2025, but despite being ready to furnish personal bond and surety, the same was arbitrarily refused by the Magistrate. Thereafter, on 17.06.2025, an FIR was lodged at Police Station Basantpur for the incident of 04.06.2025, after an unexplained delay of 13 days, which clearly shows malafides. Moreover, the offences under Sections 132, 231, 296, and 351(2) of the BNS have been wrongly applied, as Section 231 relating to fabrication of false evidence is wholly inapplicable to the facts. The FIR thus stands false, fabricated and politically motivated, lodged only under pressure of higher officials at the behest of the complainant. She further submits that the petitioner is a government teacher whose service and reputation have been seriously prejudiced by this false implication. She also submits that anticipatory bail was granted to 4 the petitioner. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the FIR prima facie discloses the cognizable offence. As such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with these petitions. 7. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 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 F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./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 F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 8. From perusal of the contents of the FIR, it transpires that the petitioner abused and threatened the complainant / Patwari while she was engaged in discharge of her official duty of demarcation, 5 thereby obstructing a public servant and causing criminal intimidation. These allegations squarely attract the ingredients of Sections 132 and 351(2) BNS. Whether Section 231 BNS has been rightly applied or not, and whether the allegations will ultimately sustain conviction, are matters for investigation and trial and cannot be decided in exercise of inherent jurisdiction at this stage. 9. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding delay of 13 days in lodging the FIR is also a matter of appreciation of evidence and does not, by itself, render the FIR liable to be quashed when the contents disclose cognizable offence. The grounds raised by the petitioner essentially relate to disputed facts and defences, which can be considered only during trial. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the contents of the FIR, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for quashment of the FIR. 11. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu