1 2025:CGHC:59627-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3733 of 2025 Nandu Uikey S/o Mahavir Singh Aged About 35 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Shripur, Tehsil And P.S. Kelari, Distt. Manendragarh Bharatpur Chirmiri, C.G., Presently R/o Police Line Aadawal, Block S-1, P.S. Bod- hghat, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Bodhghat, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Abc Details In A Closed Envelope. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ujjawal Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.1-State : Ms. Soumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 09 .12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ujjawal Agrawal, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Ms. Soumya Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/Respondent No.1. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.12.09 16:11:31 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following relief(s):- “i. First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 146/2025 dated 28.03.2025 registered at Police Station Bodhghat, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh; ii. The consequential charge sheet bearing No. 113/2025 dated 10.04.2025, arising out of the aforesaid FIR, filed for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 78 and 296 of B.N.S. 2023; iii. The order dated 22.05.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, taking cognizance of the aforementioned charge sheet, along with all consequential orders arising therefrom; iv. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3448/2025 titled "State of Chhattisgarh vs. Nandu Uikey', pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, an FIR was registered against the Petitioner on 28.03.2025 at Police Station Bodhghat, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, on the basis of a written complaint lodged by Respondent No.2/Complainant. It was alleged that on 27.03.2025 at around 11:35 PM, while the Complainant was present at her government quarter along with her children, the Petitioner, who resides in the same locality in Block S-1 and is posted as a Constable at Jagdalpur Airport came near her 3 residence, abused her in filthy language, and knocked and kicked her door, asserting that he wanted to speak to her with an improper intention. It was further alleged that on an earlier occasion, during the intervening night of 06–07.12.2024 between 12:00 midnight and 1:00 AM, the Petitioner had made repeated phone calls to the Complainant on her mobile number from his two mobile numbers. 4. Pursuant to the said written complaint, FIR No. 146/2025 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’), whereafter investigation commenced. The Police arrested the Petitioner, recorded his memorandum, examined witnesses, and upon completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet No. 113/2025 dated 10.04.2025 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur, for offences under Sections 78 and 296 of the BNS. Vide order dated 22.05.2025, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and the matter now stands posted on 06.01.2026 for arguments on charge before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur. 5. Mr. Ujjawal Agrawal, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is a serving Police Constable and continuation of the criminal proceedings is likely to seriously jeopardize his career and future prospects. It is urged that the FIR registered on 28.03.2025 at the instance of Respondent No.2/Complainant 4 alleging stalking is wholly misconceived, as the allegations, even if taken at their face value, merely pertain to an alleged verbal exchange, knocking and kicking of the door, and an assertion that the Petitioner wished to speak to her with a wrongful motive. Such allegations do not satisfy the essential statutory ingredients of the offences under Sections 78 and 296 of the BNS. 6. It is contended by Mr. Agrawal that the incident is alleged to have occurred on 27.03.2025 at about 11:35 PM, whereas the FIR came to be lodged after an unexplained delay of nearly 17 hours, thereby casting serious doubt on the genuineness and spontaneity of the accusation. It is urged that the prosecution has not produced any call detail records with the charge sheet, nor has any certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act been filed, rendering the alleged electronic evidence inadmissible in law. 7. Mr. Agrawal contends that the entire case rests solely on the statement of Respondent No.2/Complainant, without any independent witness to corroborate the allegations of door- knocking or abuse. It is emphasized that the alleged offences are bailable and not of a grave nature; there is no allegation of physical assault, sexual assault, or property damage, and therefore the prospects of conviction are extremely remote. Continuation of the proceedings in the absence of any substantive material would amount to a sheer abuse of the process of law. 5 8. It is further submitted by Mr. Agrawal that the allegations in the FIR are vague, general, and omnibus in nature. The alleged act occurred only once, whereas Section 78 of the BNS mandates repeated following, contacting, or attempts to foster personal interaction. The charge sheet is silent regarding any culpable intent to harass, intimidate, or annoy Respondent No.2/Complainant, demonstrating an absence of mens rea. Since the offence of stalking necessarily requires proof of repeated or continuous following, watching, contacting, or attempts at personal interaction whether directly or through electronic means a solitary and isolated instance cannot attract the statutory offence. In view of the absence of essential ingredients and lack of material evidence, the FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’). 9. On the other hand, Ms. Soumya Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/Respondent No.1, opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and contends that the allegations in the FIR, when read as a whole, prima facie disclose the commission of offences under Sections 78 and 296 of the BNS. It is submitted that the complainant’s statement, supported by the materials collected during investigation, is sufficient at this stage to proceed with the trial. The question of veracity or adequacy of evidence can be examined only during 6 trial, and therefore, the petition seeking quashment of the FIR and criminal proceedings is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 10. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and have carefully perused the pleadings, documents, and material available on record. 11. From perusal of the charge-sheet, it transpires that the complainant lodged an oral report at the police station stating that on 21st April 2025 at around 11:35 pm, while she was sleeping with her children in her house in Quarter Block S-2, her husband being away on duty at the outpost, the accused, Constable Nandu Udke, residing in S-1 quarter opposite to the complainant’s house and on duty at the airport, came to her house, abused her with obscene and filthy language, knocked and kicked the door, and attempted to communicate with her with improper intentions. The complainant, out of fear, could not respond. It is further stated that the accused had previously attempted to contact the complainant through mobile calls from different numbers on the night of 06-07 December 2024, thereby stalking her, copies of which calls are annexed as screenshots. 12. On the basis of the complainant’s report, a case was registered and investigated. During the investigation, the incident spot inspection was conducted, statements of the complainant’s witnesses were recorded, and the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded before the competent Court. The 7 accused was traced, summoned, and questioned, during which he admitted to disposing of the mobile phone in the Indravati river out of fear of a police report. The accused, Nandu Udke, aged 35 years, son of Mahavir Singh, caste Gond, resident of Shripur, Tehsil Kelari, District Manendragarh, presently posted at Police Line Adawal, Block S-1, Police Station Bodhaghat, Jagdalpur, was arrested on 28.03.2025 at 18:30 hrs. He was subsequently released on bail after furnishing a capable surety, as the offence was found to be bailable. 13. The investigation included preparation of the Patwari’s Nazri map of the incident spot, and Section 296 BNS was added to the case for the abuse committed by the accused. Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet No. 113/2025 dated 10.04.2025 was submitted against the accused. 14. Further, from the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, it is apparent that on 21st April 2025, at around 11:35 p.m., while she was sleeping with her children in her house, she was suddenly awakened by loud knocking at the door. She approached the door and found the accused, Constable Nandu Udke, banging on it, shouting obscene and abusive language, and kicking the door repeatedly. The accused demanded that she open the door, stating that he wanted to speak to her personally and expressed an improper interest in her. The victim, out of fear, did not respond but immediately informed her husband of the 8 incident. It was further revealed from her statement that the accused had, on a previous occasion during the intervening night of 06-07 December 2024, repeatedly contacted her on her mobile phone from different numbers. On checking the numbers through caller identification services, they were found to belong to the accused. She did not answer the calls but had informed her husband about the harassment. 15. Having carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon a meticulous perusal of the records, it is evident that the petitioner seeks quashment of the FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings on the ground of alleged delay in lodging the report, absence of independent corroborative evidence, triviality of the acts, and purported prejudice to his career. 16. It is well-established that the jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash criminal proceedings is to be exercised sparingly, and only in cases where the allegations are wholly misconceived, the complaint is malicious, or the continuation of the proceedings would result in manifest injustice. 17. The Court cannot interfere merely on the ground that the petitioner may face professional inconvenience or personal hardship, as the paramount consideration is to ensure that allegations of harassment and stalking are duly investigated and adjudicated according to law. 9 18. In the present case, the complainant has provided a detailed account of the conduct of the accused, including repeated unwanted communication on her mobile phone from multiple numbers, and direct intimidation at her residence, which caused her alarm, fear, and distress. The statement of the complainant has been recorded in camera and accepted as correct. The investigation corroborated key aspects of her complaint, including the tracing, summoning, and questioning of the accused, who admitted to certain conduct during the course of inquiry. The charge-sheet was filed after proper investigation, and the competent Magistrate took cognizance, thereby ensuring that the procedural safeguards and due process have been observed. 19. The Court finds that the petitioner has contended that the allegations, even if accepted at face value, amount to trivial acts and do not satisfy the essential statutory ingredients of Sections 78 and 296 of the BNS. However, it is pertinent to observe that the provisions of Section 78 BNS contemplate repeated or continuous acts causing harassment, fear, or distress, and Section 296 BNS punishes abusive conduct. The allegations, as narrated, prima facie disclose repeated unwelcome communication and intimidation, which are sufficient to constitute offences under the relevant provisions. The complainant was directly threatened and subjected to abusive conduct in her residence, which cannot be lightly dismissed as trivial. 10 20. The petitioner’s arguments concerning the delay in lodging the FIR and absence of call detail records at the time of filing the charge-sheet do not vitiate the case at this stage. While these matters may be relevant during trial to assess credibility or weight of evidence, they do not provide a basis for quashment at the threshold. Similarly, the alleged lack of independent witnesses or corroboration does not preclude the continuance of proceedings, particularly where the offences are primarily against the privacy, safety, and dignity of the complainant, and such cases are often supported by the victim’s testimony and corroborative material such as call records and investigative documents. 21. It is also significant that the petition does not establish that the complaint was malicious or fabricated. The prima facie material collected during investigation, including the accused’s own admissions, call records, and the complainant’s detailed statement, suffices to require a full trial for proper adjudication. The Court, therefore, cannot pre-empt the trial by quashing the proceedings merely on the ground of professional inconvenience or speculative arguments regarding the likelihood of conviction. 22. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds no exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR, the charge-sheet, or the pending criminal proceedings. The allegations, if proved at trial, could constitute offences under Sections 78 and 296 of BNS, 11 and the investigation has been conducted in accordance with law. The continuation of proceedings is thus justified in the interest of justice and protection of the complainant’s rights. 23. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 528 BNSS is hereby dismissed. FIR No. 146/2025, charge-sheet No. 113/2025, and all consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3448/2025 titled “State of Chhattisgarh vs. Nandu Udke” shall continue before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, in accordance with law. 24. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu