1 2025:CGHC:50795-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1537 of 2023 1 - Smt. Nirmala Sahu W/o Shri Ramgopal Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Premises Of Mothers Care Nursery School (Minimata School), Sector-3, Balco, Police Station Balco, District Korba (C.G.) 2 - Kumari Nimmi Sahu S/o Shri Roopram Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Premises Of Mothers Care Nursery School (Minimata School), Sector-3, Balco, Police Station Balco, District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Station House Officer Police Station Ajak, Korba (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Mamta Jangde W/o Dukalu Jangde Aged About 35 Years Jaitpur, P.S. Masturi, Local Add. Minibharat School Parisar, Dist. Korba (C.G.) 4 - Dukalu Jangde S/o Budaru Jangde Aged About 40 Years Minimata School Parisar, Dist. Korba (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Kanti Tandon W/o Keshav Tandon Aged About 32 Years Minimata School Parisar, Dist. Korba (C.G.) 6 - Keshav Tandon S/o Vishnu Tandan Aged About 37 Years Minimata School Parisar, Dist. Korba (C.G.) 7 - Kalyan Shikha Samiti Through Its Secretary, Minimata Higher Secondary School, Sector-3, Balco, Balco Nagar, Tahsil And District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. B. P. Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. Nikhil Parakh, Advocate For State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate For Resp. No. 3 to 7 : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board Per , Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13.10.2025 1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) the petitioner seeks to challenge the very registration of the F.I.R. No. 257/2020 by respondent No. 2 herein and consequential final report against petitioners under Section 452, 294, 323, 506, 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 (1) and 3 (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioners are associated with and operate a nursery school known as "Mother's Care Nursery School." A dispute arose when the respondent, Kalyan Shikshan Samiti, claiming ownership and landlord-tenant rights over the premises occupied by the school, filed a civil suit against the petitioners. The trial Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, but the respondent filed an appeal currently pending before this Court. The petitioners allege that the respondents have repeatedly attempted to unlawfully evict them and obstruct the functioning of school by denying basic amenities, including locking lavatories used by students and staff. After failed attempts to secure state protection, the school filed a writ petition, resulting 3 in directions to ensure basic amenities were provided. Subsequently, on 19.07.2019, the respondents allegedly sought to implicate the petitioners by lodging a false FIR under aforementioned sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, based on caste allegations. An interim stay was previously granted by this Court on 03.01.2022 to halt the criminal proceedings, and the petitioners have now invoked Section 482 of the CrPC to seek quashing of the entire criminal case, asserting that continuing the prosecution would violate their fundamental and constitutional rights and constitute an abuse of the legal process. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire investigation conducted and the subsequent filing of the charge sheet before the court concerned are illegal, unwarranted, and unsustainable in law. The case of petitioner clearly falls within the parameters of abuse of process of Court and abuse of process of law, thereby violating the fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under the Constitution. Consequently, the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. There is material evidence on record indicating that the registration of the FIR was manifestly mala fide, motivated by ulterior purposes, and maliciously instituted with an intent to harass the petitioners. In such circumstances, the Court must not hesitate to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings. 4 The facts and circumstances of the present case clearly align with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal, reported in (1992) Suppl. (1) SCC 335 which deals with proceedings initiated with malice and ulterior motives. In light of the above submissions, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to quash FIR No. 257/20 dated 02.06.2020 registered with respondent No. 2 Police Station, and the charge sheet dated 21.08.2020 filed before the Special Court, Korba, under Sections 452, 294, 323, 506, 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1) & 3(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Consequently, it is prayed that the entire criminal case bearing Special Criminal Case No. 41/2020 (State vs. Nirmala Sahu & Ors.) pending before the Special Judge, Atrocity Korba, be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the trial in the present case is underway and has progressed significantly. Out of twelve witnesses listed, six have already been examined on record. The evidence so far clearly indicates that the case involves substantial questions of fact, which are best decided by the trial Court. There is no justification for the quashing of the FIR or the charge sheet at this stage. The petition filed by the petitioners is premature and an attempt to derail the ongoing proceedings. Therefore, it is submitted that the petition lacks merit and should be dismissed forthwith. The learned counsel for the 5 respondents pray that this Court allow the trial to continue unhindered, ensuring the proper course of law is followed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in the petition along with the annexures annexed in the petition. 6. Upon careful consideration of the submissions and a thorough perusal of the case record, it is evident that the trial in the present matter is already underway and has progressed substantially. Out of the twelve witnesses listed to be examined, six witnesses have already given their testimonies. The allegations made in the FIR and the subsequent charge sheet involve complex questions of fact and credibility, which are best adjudicated by the trial Court after a complete trial. Interfering at this stage would amount to pre-empting the trial and encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the Court designated to try the case. 7. In light of the above, this Court finds no justifiable ground to quash the FIR or the criminal proceedings at this stage. Since there is no interim order in effect staying the trial, and considering the progress already made in the trial process, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the ongoing proceedings. The criminal justice system must be allowed to take its due course, and the trial Court is best positioned to evaluate the evidence and render a fair and just verdict. 6 8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, and it is directed that the trial shall continue unhindered. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shayna