1 2025:CGHC:51811-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3173 of 2025 Bajarangi Lal Singh S/o Late Kishun Singh, aged about 33 years R/o Aadarsh Para Sanjay Nagar, Near Kadam Jhad, Police Station Supela District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Supela Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Sanju Tiwari W/o Pawan Tiwari Aged About 30 Years R/o Shankar Chawk Bheem Nagar, Police Station Supela, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) (as per FIR) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Kumbhare, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Saumya 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 30.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rohan Kumbhare, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short, ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the petitioner seeking following prayer :- “It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the petition and be pleased to quash the First Information report dated 01.05.2025 along with the charge-sheet and taking cognizance by learned JMFC Durg on 26.06.2025 proceeding in connection with the crime bearing Crime/FIR No. 503/2025 u/s 326(g), 62, 190, 191(3) of BNS & 25 &27 of Arms Act 1959(Annexure P-1)(colly), in the interest of justice.” 3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 30.04.2025, brother of complainant Rohit Tiwari and his friend Raja alias Billi both stabbed Rahul Singh (brother of petitioner) due to old enmity. On 30.04.2025, when the complainant was sleeping at home with her family and at around 11:45 pm, she smelled diesel and heard shouting outside the house. When she went out of the house, she saw Seema Sahni, Jitendra Yadav and people from the neighborhood had come out of the house. Along with Seema Sahni, Jitendra Yadav, Daya Shankar Tiwari, she saw Pratik Bhimte of Bhais Khatal Mohalla, Mohan Nirmalkar alias Brij Lucky Sharma alias Yash, Sameer Khan alias Mukhi, Harish Thakur alias Falli, Satyam Manhare and about 10-12 other people, some of whom were carrying diesel containers in their hands. Anish Yadav alias Babu Ayan Akashpal and Sonu Yadav alias Dev were carrying deadly iron weapons. They were waving sharp iron knife, 3 Gufti and Chapad and keeping diesel container and other things for setting fire in the hands of other people, they gathered aggressively and were saying to kill all of them. They all were saying that Rahul Bhai has been killed, that is why Bajrangi Bhai and Takla have sent us to burn and kill all of you, today we will burn everyone to ashes and reduce them to ashes, they were shouting that all of them were unanimously pouring diesel in the house of Raja alias Billu Sahni and setting it on fire. At the same time, when the neighbours came out of their houses and on hearing the siren of the police, all of them ran away from the spot. On that report, a crime was registered and investigation was taken up. Statement of the applicant and witnesses was taken. Scene map was prepared and after getting it examined by FSL unit, the address of the accused was traced and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was against five accused persons including the petitioner before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg and thereafter cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate on 26.06.2025. Hence, this petition with the aforementioned prayer. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated, he is innocent, he has not committed any offence. He submitted that the present petitioner was not present at the spot on the date of incident, he was busy in treatment of his brother Rahul Singh at BM Shah Hospital Supela District, Durg. He further submitted that neither the complainant 4 nor any witnesses had seen the petitioner and their versions are contradictory as per heir statements, which demonstrates that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. The investigation records (to the extent available) and contemporaneous entries do not disclose petitioner’s presence or any act done by him. It is pertinent here to mention that all the witnesses in their statement did not disclose the presence of petitioner on the spot. He lastly submits that the petitioner has already been granted regular bail from the learned trial Court. There is a clear, proximate and continuing motive for falsely implicating the petitioner in present case. 5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent opposes this petition and submits that it is a case of online fraud and since the charge-sheet has already been submitted against the petitioner, and the perusal of the materials on record discloses commission of cognizable offence, no interference is warranted at this stage. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From perusal of the FIR, the documents appended with the charge sheet especially the statements of the complainant and witnesses recorded under Section 180 of BNSS, it is evident that prima facie, a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. It has further been informed that after filing of the charge sheet, cognizance has also been taken against the petitioner. 5 8. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge- heet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C {See: State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 605 and Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315}. 9. In view of the above, we do not find it a fit case to quash the FIR, charge sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings being RCC 22695/2022 pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.), and as such, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra