1 2025:CGHC:57115-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3572 of 2025 1. Shushil Tamrakar S/o Shri Ramesh Prasad Tamrakar Aged About 38 Years Ward No. 14, J.K.D. Road Manendragarh, Police Station-City Kotwali, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (M.C.B.) C.G. 2. Kunal Tamrakar S/o Shri Shushil Tamrakar Aged About 22 Years Ward No. 14, J.K.D. Road Manendragarh, Police Station-City Kotwali, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (M.C.B.) C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station - Manendragarh, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur C.G. 2. Amit Tiwari S/o Shri Gorelal Tiwari Aged About 32 Years Ward No. 15 Badan Singh Mohalla, Manendragarh, District- Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur C.G. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Himanshu Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.11.26 10:37:16 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 25.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Himanshu Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “i. First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 92 of 2025 dated 30.05.2025 under Section 296(b), 351(2), 115(2) read with Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (MCB), Chhattisgarh; ii. The consequent charge-sheet bearing No. 107 of 2025 dated 12.07.2025 of Police Station Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur (MCB), Chhattisgarh, arising out of the aforesaid FIR, filed for the commission of offence punishable under Section 296(b), 351(2), 115(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; iii. The order dated 31.07.2025 of Criminal Case No. 820 of 2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur (MCB), Chhattisgarh taking cognizance of the aforementioned charge-sheet; 3 iv. And the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 820 of 2025 titled ‘State of Chhattisgarh vs. Shushil Tamrakar and Kunal Tamrakar, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur (MCB) Chhattisgarh.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 01.12.2007, the petitioner purchased a house situated at Badan Singh Mohalla on Plot No. 394, measuring 455 square feet. The said land had been allotted under the Rajiv Gandhi Awas Yojana to Chandrabali Tiwari’s wife, Anita Tiwari (i.e., respondent No. 2’s elder uncle’s wife). It is alleged that Chandrabali Tiwari misrepresented himself as competent to sell the said property and executed a sale agreement in favour of petitioner No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Subsequently, petitioner No. 1 came to know that the actual allottee and landowner was Anita Tiwari, who had obtained the land on lease under the Rajiv Gandhi Awas Yojana. Petitioner No. 1 thereafter lodged a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Manendragarh on 01.03.2021. 4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner No. 1 instituted revenue proceedings before the Court of the Tehsildar, Manendragarh and vide order dated 16.07.2025, the Tehsildar recorded that the land was leased in favour of Anita Tiwari and that a house had been constructed thereon by Chandrabali Tiwari under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana. Learned counsel further contended that on 30.05.2025, at about 8:00 a.m., the complainant, along with two others, assaulted the petitioners and threatened to kill them, causing 4 grievous injuries. Based on a complaint lodged by a relative of the petitioners, FIR No. 91/2025 was registered at Police Station Manendragarh, and the matter is under investigation. 5. It is further pointed out that on the same date, respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint before the same Police Station regarding the very same incident, on the basis of which FIR No. 92/2025 was registered for offences under Sections 3(5), 115(2), 296(b), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the petitioners. After investigation, charge-sheet No. 107/2025 was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur. The petitioners were released on bond and the matter is presently pending before the learned trial Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on 31.07.2025. He further stated that making a false report by respondent No. 2 has been given the hue of a criminal offence done by the present petitioners, which is alleged to be a clear abuse of the process of law, hence the present petition. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and submits that the investigation was conducted strictly in accordance with law, sufficient material exists to proceed against the petitioners, and no case for quashing is made out. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused 5 the pleadings and documents on record, and carefully considered the rival submissions. 9. It is an undisputed position that both the petitioner and the complainant have lodged FIRs against each other relating to the same incident and that separate charge-sheets have been filed, giving rise to cross-cases. The material on record indicates that injuries have been sustained by both sides. 10. In such circumstances, where the allegations and counter- allegations pertain to the same occurrence and involve disputed questions of fact regarding the genesis and sequence of events, it would be inappropriate for this Court, in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, to enter into an evaluation of evidence or determine the relative culpability of the parties at this preliminary stage. 11. The truthfulness of the rival versions, the role attributed to each party, and the determination of the aggressor are matters that can only be adjudicated upon at trial upon a full appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. It is also admitted that which party was the aggressor cannot be conclusively determined at this stage. Further, it is evident from the record that both sides have sustained injuries and that there are cross-reports arising out of the same incident. It is well settled that the power to quash criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances where the allegations, taken at their face value, do not make out any offence. The present 6 case does not fall within such a category. 12. Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction for quashing the FIR, the charge-sheet, or the consequential proceedings. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition stands dismissed. It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya 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 appeal or any other proceeding before the competent forum. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan