1 2025:CGHC:59043-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3690 of 2025 1 - Nishikant Minj S/o Prabhudan Minj Aged About 45 Years R/o N T P C Police Station- Darri, District- Korba C.G. 2 - Suman Vaani Minj W/o Nishikant Minj Aged About 43 Years R/o NTPC Police Station- Darri, District- Korba C.G. 3 - Anupama Toppo D/o Vinayprakash Toppo Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Girang, P.S. And District Jashpur C.G., Currently Residing At C H C Pathalgaon, District Jashpur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Pathalgaon, District Jashpur C.G. 2 - Sukhdev Nag S/o Banu Nag Aged About 45 Years R/o Gram Kodkela Gharjiyanbathan, Tehsil- Pathalgaon, District Jashpur C.G. Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate alongwith Mr. Kaif Ali Rizvi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.12.06 11:45:44 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 05/12/2025 1. The instant CRMP has been filed by the petitioners with the following relief:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the order taking cognizance dated 30.10.2025 in passed in Criminal Case No. 1779/2025 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pathalgaon District- Jashpur (C.G.) and Chargesheet bearing No.148/2025 dated 14.10.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 80 and 87 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and section 318(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 registered at Police Station Patthalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) and all consequential proceedings in the interest of justice.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the complainant (respondent no.2) lodged a written report on 14.09.2025 alleging that his newborn girl child, delivered on 28.08.2025 at the Government Hospital, Patthalgaon, was taken away by petitioner No.3 on the pretext of vaccination, and thereafter handed over to petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 under the guise of medical treatment, who allegedly did not return the child despite repeated requests. 3 On the said report, FIR No.185/2025 was registered for offences under Sections 80 and 81 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners under Sections 80 and 87 of the JJ Act and Section 318(2) of the BNS. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that that no offence under Sections 80 and 87 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ ACT) is made out against the petitioners. The petitioners further submit that a lawful Adoption Deed dated 30.08.2025 had already been executed between the parties, and the allegations made by respondent No.2 are false and discharge slip and duty records of the hospital. They therefore contend that the FIR, lodged after an unexplained delay of 14 days, is wholly malicious and an abuse of process. According to the petitioners, the prosecution of the petitioners is wholly unwarranted and he submitted that the affidavit has already been executed by the complainant and his wife whereas adoption deed was executed on 30/08/2025 but thereafter they resile and lodged the present FIR for Magisterial prosecution of the petitioners, hence he would pray for quashment of the FIR. 4. Per Contra, learned State counsel would oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners for quashment of the FIR and submits that initially the FIR has been lodged against the present petitioners for the offence under Section 318(2) and during investigation, Section 81 of JJ Act has been dropped and 4 Section 87 has been added, therefore, at this stage, interference of this Court in the proceedings of the trial Court would hamper the trial and hence, FIR, order taking cognizance and the charge- sheet may not be quashed at this juncture. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and particularly considering the fact that the allegation which have been levelled against the present petitioners is for taking away the newborn girl child from the lawful custody of her parents surreptitiously by getting the blank papers signed by him and adoption deed was prepared, at this stage, it is not proper for this Court to quash the FIR, order taking cognizance and the charge sheet against the petitioners as well as the criminal proceeding pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, hence, we are not inclined to interfere in the present matter, leaving it open to the petitioners to take every objection before the trial Court concerned at appropriate stage. 7. 7. Accordingly, the instant CRMP is rejected at the motion stage. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/ (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S. Bhilwar