1 2025:CGHC:4413-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 40 of 2025 1 - Manisha Manikpuri W/o Shri Ashok Manikpuri, Aged About 34 Years R/o Pachari Ghat, Juna Bilaspur, Police Station City Kotwali Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General of Police, Directorate Home Department, Indirawati Bhawan, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent of Police Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Station House Officer, Police Station Anusuchit Jati Kalyan (AJAK), Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Kiran Rai W/o Shri Yogendra Rai Aged About 32 Years R/o Pachri Ghat, Juna Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate. For State-Respondents : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 24-01-2025 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 1. The present petition has been filed seeking following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under Section 528 of 483 Bhartiya Narik Suraksha Sahinta 2023 filed by the petitioner. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quashed the impugned FIR bearing No.04/2024 dated 10.08.2024 under section offence under Section 420, 294, 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1) (r) and (s) of the SC/ST Act Annexure P/1 registered in the police station Anusuchit Jati Kalyan (AJAK) Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 10.3 Any other relief may also be granted in favors of the petitioner as may deem fit by the Hon’ble Court as per the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts mentioned in the petition are that, on 09-08-2024 the complainant lodged a written complaint against the present petitioner and her husband Ashok Manikpuri with allegation that they have cheated the complainant and taken Rs.7,00,000/- on the pretext of providing employment to them, but they have not provided them the government employment. Now, they have not returning their amount. When they demanded their amount back on 19-06-2024 they abused them in the name of their caste which was witnessed by the witnesses and threatened them. On the report of the complainant the FIR for offence under Section 420, 294, 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SC/ST Act 3 has been registered on 10-08-2024 by AJAK police Bilaspur in which the investigation is going on and the the husband of the petitioner has been arrested by the AJAK police Bilaspur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the complaint was filed by the private respondent which was enquired into and report was submitted by the Head Constable Suresh Banjare to the concerned Station House Officer vide report dated 24-06-2024 that no cognizable offence has been disclosed, but concealing the said fact the private respondent has lodged the FIR against the petitioner and her husband and it has been further submitted that after rejection of the anticipatory bail application by the trial Court the petitioner and her husband filed CRA No.1597/2024 for grant of anticipatory bail before this Court and the same was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12-11-2024. Hence, she has come up before this Court for quashing of the FIR seeking interim relief staying her arrest and the proceedings in pursuance of the FIR. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sri Gulam Mustafa Vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 421. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. and submitted that from a perusal of F.I.R., a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner and the relief as claimed cannot be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021 (M/s Neeharika 4 Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others), and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have perused the prayers and the pleadings made in the present petition. 6. In the matter of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Vs. State of Maharashtra, (supra), reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 23 held as under :- “23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information 5 report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;” 7. From perusal of the documents annexed with the petition as well as copy of the FIR, it prima facie appears that the complainant was cheated by the petitioner and she has taken about Rs.7,00,000/- on various installments by giving allurement that they will provide Govt. Job to the complainant and when they failed to provide them Govt. job and the complainant demanded her amount back, the petitioner abused her and refused to return back her amount. The complainant was also abused in the name 6 of her caste which was witnessed by other witnesses and the petitioner has also threaten her. From the written complaint made by the complainant it also appears that the petitioner was well within knowledge about the fact that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste community and she intentionally insulted and intimidated the complainant in the place within public view. 8. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is based on different facts and circumstances than that of the present case, therefore, no benefit can be extended to the petitioner on the basis of the same. 9. Considering the allegation which have been leveled in the impugned FIR against the petitioner, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is disclosed in the impugned FIR against the petitioner, hence, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR or the entire criminal proceedings if any arising therefrom in view of the law laid down in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil