1 2025:CGHC:20602-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1545 of 2025 Rohan Patnayak S/o Ashok Patnayak Aged About 28 Years R/o Bazar Road Near Hanuman Mandir, Tamnar, Police Station Tamnar, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Officer In Charge, P.S. - Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - ABC Details Of The Prosecutrix Is Filed In A Closed Envelope ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.1 / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “(i) set-aside/ quash the impugned First Information Report Dated 08.10.2024 bearing FIR MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.05.07 10:33:18 +0530 2 No. 1225/2024 under sections 126(2), 75, 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 registered in Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur CG, also set aside/quash entire charge-sheet in crime no. 1225/2024 dated 12.12.2024 in the interest of justice. (Annexure P/1 and P/2 respectively) (ii) set-aside/ quash the impugned order dated 10.03.2025 passed by Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.). (Annexure P/3) (iii) grant any other order(s), deemed fit & just in the facts & circumstances of the case in favour of petitioner.” 3. Prosecution story in a nutshell is that on 08.10.2024, a complaint was made by the complainant/prosecutrix Nandani Singh on 07.10.2024 at about 9.30 PM, she was going with her friend Manav Sahu in a car bearing No. CG-10-AT-9750 from Sipat Chowk to Ashok Nagar. She has alleged the co-accused namely Abhijeet Jangde met them near the Muktidham gate and tried to outrage the modesty of prosecutrix/complainant by passing filthy comments. She has further alleged the co-accused Abhijeet Jangde was previously known to her and they were friends however subsequently accused Abhijeet Jangde used to follow her and used to talk to her in inappropriate manner and when Abhijeet Jangde passed such comments on the prosecutrix, present petitioner was also present alongwith the accused Abhijeet Jangde and the same act of Abhijeet Jangde opposed by the friend of prosecutrix, accused persons started committing 3 assault with her friends. On the basis of aforesaid complainant first information report was lodged by the police authorities in the name of Abhijeet Jangde in the present petitioner under section 126(2), 75, 3(5) of B.N.S. and they were produced before the magistrate whereby bail was granted to them. 4. Leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the said offences. The present petitioner is a practicing advocate and he has nothing to do with the aforesaid allegations. The co-accused Abijeet Jangde is document writer in the Tahsil Office Masturi and the present petitioner had gone to meet him for some clerical work. The actual scenario of the present case in hand is that the co-accused Abhijeet Jangde was standing near Muktidham Gate where by the complainant/prosecutrix who was previously a close friend to co-accused Abhijeet Jangde came alongwith some of her friends along with Manaw Sahu and started abusing Abhijeet Jangde and committed assault with him sustaining some grievous injuries. When such incident happened with Abhijeet Jangde, the present petitioner was present there and tried to stop the fight. Since various injuries were sustained to Abhijeet Jangde, he was immediately taken to hospital by the petitioner and thereafter co- accused Abhijeet Jangde lodged an FIR bearing No. 1224/2024 on 08.10.2024 at about 00.15 A.M. in the night against the prosecutrix and her friends whereby offences under Sections 115(2), 296, 3(5), 351(2) of BNS was registered. Further, it is 4 abundantly clear that as the counter of the FIR lodged by the Co- accused Abhijeet Jangde and to which the petitioner is witness, a false and fabricated afterthought FIR has been lodged by the prosecutrix against petitioner only with intention to temper the witness. In the entire charge-sheet and the statement of prosecutrix recorded by police, there is no such allegation of outraging the modesty against the present petitioner. It is very clear from conduct of the prosecutrix that only to make a defense in her favour false FIR has been lodged against the petitioner. The petitioner has no previous criminal antecedent and he was never named in any criminal case previously. 5. Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet and submits that in the present matter, since the charge-sheet has already been filed and the Magistrate concerned has already taken the cognizance, as such, this petition has virtually become infructuous and the same may be dismissed. 6. Learned State Counsel further argued that a bare perusal of statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS goes to show that the present petitioner along with the co- accused has tried to molest the prosecutrix and on the date of incident, prosecutrix was with her friends, when the petitioner along with co-accused harassed her, due to which, a fight started between her friends and the petitioner and co-accused. The prosecutrix has also mentioned that earlier also, the petitioner 5 along with the co-accused has harassed her various times. Hence, looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, the present petition is liable to be rejected. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 8. This Court is of the opinion that though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that counter versions of the incident has already been lodged at an earlier point of time at the behest of the petitioner and co-accused against the private respondent No.2 and the present petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case, but considering the statement made by the prosecutrix under Section 180 of the BNSS and the charge-sheet, it goes to show that the petitioner along with the co-accused has tried to molest the proseuctrix and the incident has taken place. 9. 9. As such, looking to the heinous nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, we not find any good ground to interfere in the present matter as the impugned charge-sheet, discloses cognizable offence on the part of the petitioner. Hence, it is obligatory that the trial be brought to a logical end. 10. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this petition. The petition lacks merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet