1 2025:CGHC:55016-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3410 of 2025 Parad Chandrakar S/o Mannulal Chandrakar Aged About 49 Years R/o- Village- Surundahara, P.S.- Dadhi, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Darhi, District- Bemetara (C.G.) 2. Balkrishna Chandrakar S/o Hanuman Prasad Chandrakar Aged About 40 Years R/o- Village- Surundahara, P.S.- Dadhi, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Soumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 12.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Soumya Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 1/State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.11.13 10:28:33 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition and consequently quash the FIR No. 29 of 2025 registered at the Police Station Dadhi, District Bemetara (C.G.) on 05.05.2025 for offence punishable under Section 296, 351(3) and 115(2) of the BNS, further quash charge-sheet (challan) bearing No. 36 of 2025 dated 31.05.2025 (Annexure P/1) for offence punishable under Section 296, 351(3) and 115(2) of BNS and also quash the order taking cognizance dated 26.07.2025 registering criminal case bearing Criminal Case No. 3948 of 2025, as well the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3948 of 2025 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) against the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid charge-sheet, in the interest of justice. And/or any other relief/relief’s which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may pleased also granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant party came to the house of the petitioner, brutally assaulted him, abused him in filthy language by taking the name of his mother and sister, and also extended threats to kill him. It is contended that as a result of the said assault, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries, including a fracture of his right ninth rib and multiple injuries on different parts of his body. The petitioner was initially treated at the Primary Health Centre, 3 Dadhi, and was subsequently referred to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur (C.G.), for advanced medical care. Learned counsel further submits that on the very date of the incident, the petitioner lodged an FIR against the complainant party (comprising four individuals), which was registered as Crime No. 28/2025 at Police Station Dadhi, District Bemetara. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet on 04.07.2025 against the said accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), and 117(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 4. It is further submitted that subsequent to the registration of the aforesaid FIR, the complainant, with mala fide intention and as a counterblast to the petitioner’s report, lodged a false and retaliatory FIR against the petitioner, registered as Crime No. 29/2025, for offences punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), and 115(2) of the BNS. Consequent to the said FIR, the police investigated the matter and filed a charge-sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara, who took cognizance of the offences on 26.07.2025 and registered Criminal Case No. 3948/2025 against the present petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present criminal proceedings are nothing but a malicious prosecution initiated to harass and humiliate the petitioner, who is in fact the victim of the incident. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) 4 SCC 335, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the well- recognized categories of cases in which the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) to quash criminal proceedings in order to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the present case squarely falls within the parameters delineated in Bhajan Lal (supra). It is urged that the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to previous enmity and that the allegations in the charge-sheet, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioner. It is therefore prayed that the FIR, charge-sheet, and all consequential proceedings pending before the learned trial Court be quashed. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by the petitioner and contends that the investigation was conducted in accordance with law, and sufficient material exists to proceed against the petitioner. It is submitted that the present petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the pleadings on record, and examined the documents annexed with the petition. The rival contentions have been considered with due care. 9. It is an admitted position that both the petitioner and the complainant have lodged FIRs against each other in relation to the 5 same incident, and that separate charge-sheets have been filed by the police before the competent Court, giving rise to cross-cases. It is also evident from the record that both parties have sustained injuries. In such circumstances, where the allegations and counter-allegations pertain to the same occurrence and involve questions of fact regarding the genesis and manner of the incident, it would not be appropriate for this Court, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, to conduct a detailed evaluation of the evidence or to determine the relative culpability of either party at this preliminary stage. 10. The veracity of the rival versions, the nature of participation of each individual, and the degree of their involvement can only be properly adjudicated upon during trial after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. It is well-settled that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases where the allegations, taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence. In the present case, we are unable to hold that the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides or that continuation thereof would amount to abuse of the process of law. 11. Accordingly, this Court does not find it a fit case to invoke its inherent jurisdiction for quashing the FIR, charge-sheet, or the criminal proceedings arising therefrom. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition stands dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present petition under Section 6 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and shall not prejudice the rights of either party in the pending trial. The petitioner shall be at liberty to avail such remedies as may be available to him in law, including the remedy of appeal or any other appropriate proceeding before the competent forum. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan