1 2025:CGHC:5946-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 417 of 2025 Samir Shukla S/o Shri Agni Kumar Shukla Aged About 42 Years R/o Balodabazar, P.S- City Kotwali, Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- City Kotwali, Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondent/State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.02.03 18:10:19 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from Police Station City Kotwali, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara. 2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the charge-sheet (challan), which has been registered as Crime No. 260 of 2024 at Police Station City Kotwali, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara for the offence under Sections 384, 389, 212 & 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as the criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No. 2998 of 2024 and all further proceeding of the learned trial Court against the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 3. That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) seeking quashment of charge-sheet, which has been registered as Crime No. 260 of 2024 at Police Station City Kotwali, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 389, 212 & 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC in 3 respect of the petitioner, as well as the criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No. 2998 of 2024 and all further proceeding of the learned trial Court. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that according to the prosecution story 09 accused persons have committed the offence of extortion against one D.K. Das they demanded the sum of Rs. 15 lakhs from the complainant. During the course of the investigation and upon recording the statement of the complainant under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C., it was revealed that the accused persons had threatened to commit rape upon a minor girl and had subsequently extorted a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs from the complainant. He also submits that the accused persons then divided the extorted amount among themselves to settle the matter. Consequently, based on the report submitted by Assistant Sub Inspector, a FIR No. 260 of 2024 was registered against Monty and eight other co-accused persons under Sections 384, 389 and 34 of the IPC on 07.04.2024 not against the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner has been falsely try to implicate in this case and no prima facie case has been made out against him, therefore, the entire challan are liable to be set aside. Hence, this petition. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR as well as in the charge-sheet submitted before the competent Court, therefore, the present is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 4 materials available on record. 7. From perusal of the FIR as well as the charge-sheet, it transpires that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and in the charge-sheet there is no cognizable offence has been made out against the petitioner, but he has come up before this Court for quashing of the proceedings on the ground that he had apprehending his arrest, but this is not a case in which the proceedings have to be quashed, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the present petition. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to law for apprehending his arrest. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan