1 / 4 2025:CGHC:6707-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2489 of 2018 1 - Smt. Sangita Pandey Wife of Shri S.N. Pandey Aged About 57 Years Occupation Housewife R/o Katia Para Juna Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Ms. Binu Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Shaleen Singh Baghel, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice & Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06/02/2025 Heard Ms. Binu Sharma, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate for the State. 1. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed for quashing the proceedings arising out of the first information report registered against the petitioner at ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.02.07 15:56:41 +0530 2 / 4 Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on the basis of an information dated 26/08/2017 made by the Bhawan Adhikari, Nagar Nigam, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh an FIR was registered on 27/08/2017 alleging that the petitioner had applied for seeking a permission for approval to make construction on plot No.H-2/109 allotted to her under Narmada Nagar Awasiya Project on 15/07/2016. Pursuant to such application moved by the petitioner, the Engineer of the Municipal Corporation conducted a spot inspection and examined the revenue records, thereafter, the license was granted to her and after obtaining the permission, she contacted the Contractor for construction of the building and raised construction over the said land. Thereafter, on 03/02/2017 she received a notice from the Municipal Corporation Bilaspur under Section 307 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 for removal of the illegal construction and she was asked to file reply of the said notice. 3. On 06/02/2017 the petitioner filed her reply to the aforesaid notice and on 03/03/2017 she made an application for regularization of the construction. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that an FIR has been registered against her under Section 188 of the IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for the anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court and got anticipatory bail on 12/11/2018. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that essential 3 / 4 ingredients of the offence are absent in the present case and no case has been made out against the petitioner under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. She would next contend that the application made before the Station-in-Charge cannot be termed as Complaint under Section 2 (d) of the Cr.P.C. She would next contend that the FIR does not disclose any details to constitute an offence under Section 188 of the IPC. She would lastly contend that under the circumstances, she cannot be criminally prosecuted and the instant FIR lodged against the petitioner may be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel would contend that the registration of FIR against the petitioner is just and proper which do not require any interference by this Court. He would next contend that the petitioner has also not made a party to the complainant as such no relief can be granted to the petitioner in absence of proper party. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Perusal of the FIR (Annexure P-1) shows that complainant/Municipal Corporation Bilaspur issued a notice under Section 307 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 for removal of the illegal construction to the petitioner and she was also directed to file reply, however, despite the said notice the construction work was continued by the petitioner. Therefore, the FIR was registered. In view of this the FIR 4 / 4 discloses a cognizable offence against the petitioner bearing crime No.654/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 188 IPC registered against the petitioner at Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G. and the correctness & authenticity of the same cannot be gone into at this stage, it is a matter of investigation. The FIR cannot be quashed at the threshold only on the mere say of the petitioner that no offence is made out against her. Quashing the FIR at this stage would amount to stop the investigation at the threshold to nip in the bud. Furthermore, the petitioner has also not made party to the complainant. In view of this, we are not inclined to entertain this petition in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 8. Accordingly, the petition sans substratum, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- SD/- SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ashu