1 2025:CGHC:52099-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3198 of 2025 Atul Kumar Upadhyay S/o Shri Dindayal Upadhyay Aged About 30 Years R/o Beto P S Raghunath Nagar District Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mention Aged 32 In Impugned Order) ... Applicant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through SHO Police Station Raghunath Nagar, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 2. Savita @ Lalmuni W/o Ramsundar Gond Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Rajkheta Wadrafnagar P S Basantpur Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj At Present R/o Village Sarna P S Raghunath-Nagar District Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ...Non-applicant(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate. For Non-applicant No. 1/State: Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 27.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for non- applicant No. 1/State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.10.27 18:12:15 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the applicant with the following prayers: “i. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased quash/set-aside the impugned first information report (FIR) No. 9 of 2024 registered at Police Station Raghunathnagar, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) dated 27.07.2024 for offence under Section 115(2), 191(2), 296, 351(2)(3) of BNS Act, 2023 & further added 3(1)(n), (ध) SC/ST Act, 1989. ii. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the final report dated 31.12.2024 and entire charge-sheet crime 69/2024 for offence 115(2), 191(2), 296, 351(2)(3) of BNS Act, 2023 & 3(1)(n), (ध) SC/ST Act, 1989. iii. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the order taking cognizance dated 27.01.2025 by the Special Judge (Atrocity) Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.). iv. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the entire criminal proceedings of the criminal case No. 02/2025, (State of C.G. vs. Rambilas Agariya and Others) pending before the Special Judge (Atrocity) Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), and discharge from the case to the applicant in the interest of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is a resident of Village Beto, Police Station Raghunath Nagar, District Balrampur– Ramanujganj, and is stated to be a social worker in the Balrampur area. On a complaint made by one Shivkumari, an FIR bearing Crime No. 68 of 2024 was registered against Ashutosh Upadhyay and Devendra 3 Upadhyaya, alleging that on 24.07.2024 at about 1:00 p.m., they forcibly started ploughing the leased land of Shivkumari; and when she resisted, they allegedly abused her in caste-based filthy language, assaulted her with a lathi, and caused a loss of Rs. 10,000 by damaging the field. The said FIR was lodged at 12:30 p.m. on 27.07.2024. Thereafter, another FIR bearing Crime No. 69 of 2024 was registered at 11:30 p.m. on 27.07.2024 at the instance of Shivkumari against Atul Upadhyay, Shivkumari, Ramvilas Agariya, Vinod Agariya, Rajanta, and Chhotelal, alleging that they had assaulted and threatened to kill her. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that an FIR was lodged by Shivkumari against Ashutosh Upadhyay and Devendra Upadhyaya, registered as Crime No. 68 of 2024 on 27.07.2024, for an incident that allegedly occurred on 24.07.2024 at about 1:00 p.m. It is stated that the said accused persons were attempting to grab the land of Shivkumari, for which she lodged the FIR. The petitioner is said to have assisted Shivkumari in this matter. Subsequently, the present FIR was lodged against the petitioner along with five other accused persons, which was registered as Crime No. 69 of 2024 for offences under Sections 115(2), 191(2), 296, 351(2)(3) of the BNS, 2023, and later, Sections 3(1)(n) and 3(1)(ध) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were added. 5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that he was not present at the date and time of the alleged incident, and the dispute was primarily between Ashutosh Upadhyay and Devendra 4 Upadhyaya on one side and Shivkumari on the other. Hence, in order to falsely implicate the petitioner, his name has been deliberately included in the present case. It is also contended that the petitioner had earlier challenged the FIR bearing Crime No. 69 of 2024 in CRMP No. 3439 of 2024, and by order dated 12.09.2024, the said petition was disposed off, directing that the interim order passed therein shall continue for a further period of three weeks or till submission of the final report upon conclusion of investigation, whichever is earlier. He further submitted that the FIR registered by Police Station Raghunath Nagar is illegal, as even upon a plain reading of the FIR, prima facie, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 115(2), 191(2), 296, 351(2) of the BNS, 2023 and 3(1)(द), (घ) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 are not made out against the petitioner. Hence, being aggrieved by the said FIR, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashment of the FIR and all consequential proceedings. 6. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submitted that there are counter versions of the incident that took place on 24.07.2024. It is argued that both parties have lodged FIRs regarding the same occurrence, and therefore, the veracity of their rival allegations can be tested only during trial. The plea of alibi raised by the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage, as such defence can be proved only by leading evidence. It is further submitted that the trial against the co- accused persons is still pending. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 5 material available on record, including the impugned FIR and charge- sheet. 8. It is evident from the record that there are counter versions of the same incident dated 24.07.2024. On one hand, Shivkumari has lodged Crime No. 68 of 2024 against Ashutosh Upadhyay and Devendra Upadhyaya for alleged land grabbing, while on the other, the present FIR (Crime No. 69 of 2024) has been lodged against the applicant and others concerning the very same occurrence. The existence of such cross-cases clearly indicates that there is allegations and counter allegations between the parties, and the truth of their respective allegations can only be determined after appreciation of evidence during trial. 9. The applicant’s plea that he was not present at the place of occurrence and has been falsely implicated appears to be a matter of defence, which cannot be adjudicated at this stage under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The plea of alibi or false implication involves factual issues that can only be established through evidence during trial. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, that while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the Court should not embark upon an inquiry into disputed questions of fact or assess the correctness of the allegations in the FIR, especially where counter versions of the same incident exist. The appropriate course is to 6 allow the trial to proceed so that evidence can be tested before the competent Court. 11. In the present case, the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences against the applicant and the co-accused persons. The existence of counter FIRs, by itself, cannot justify quashing the proceedings, particularly when investigation has been completed and the trial against the co-accused persons are pending. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, and considering that there exist rival versions of the same incident, this Court finds no ground to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) to quash the FIR registered as Crime No. 69 of 2024, the charge-sheet bearing No. 126 of 2024, the order taking cognizance dated 27.01.2025, and the entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 02 of 2025 pending against the petitioner. 13. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the applicant shall be at liberty to raise all permissible pleas, including that of alibi or false implication, before the trial Court at the appropriate stage. Any observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding this petition and shall not prejudice the case of either party during trial. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan