1 2025:CGHC:56008-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3492 of 2025 Anchal Agrawal S/o Anil Kumar Agrawal Aged About 30 Years R/o 1/55, Pandit Ravi Shankar Shukla Nagar, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station, Civil Line, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 2. Ayush Kumar Singh S/o Late Thakur Vinod Kumar Singh Aged About 25 Years R/o Phase-1, L.I.G.-18, R.P. Nagar, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) (Complainant) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent /State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 18/11/2025 1. The instant CRMP has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS with the following prayer:- JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.11.19 13:01:08 +0530 2 “(i) (1) Allow this petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. filed by the petitioner. (ii) Quash the impugned FIR dated 24.10.2025 bearing Crime No. 668/2025 registered at Police Station, Civil Line, Korba (C.G.) for the offence under Section 296, 309(4), 351(2) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 against the petitioner. (iii) Grant any other relief (s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in favour of petitioner may also be granted.” 2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that a report was lodged by complainant Ayush Kumar Singh on 24.10.2025 at Police Station Civil Line, Korba, wherein he alleged that on 22.10.2025 at about 12:00 Noon, while he was changing the battery of his trailer vehicle near Niharika Phase-1 Dussehra Ground, the petitioner along with his associate Deepak Sharma approached him, threatened him with serious consequences, and demanded ₹1500/-. Out of fear, the complainant handed over the amount to the petitioner. Based on this report, offences under Sections 296, 351, and 309(4) of the B.N.S. were registered against the petitioner and co-accused Deepak Sharma. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR dated 24.10.2025 is perverse, frivolous, and lodged with mala fide intention, besides being filed with an unexplained delay, and therefore deserves to be quashed. It is argued that the FIR is a counterblast to an earlier incident. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a reputed businessman engaged in transport and 3 regularly files income tax returns, making it highly improbable that he would extort a mere 1500/- from respondent No. 2. The ₹ alleged place of incident is a busy public chowk with constant police presence, rendering the allegation of loot inherently improbable. It is further submitted that respondent No. 2 himself is involved in antisocial activities, with offences registered against him under the Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haji Iqbal @ Bala v. State of U.P. (CRA No.2343/2023) and this Court in the matter of Aniruddha Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (CRMP No.1587 of 2022), learned counsel contends that criminal proceedings initiated with malicious intent and ulterior motives can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 B.N.S., especially when the allegations are absurd, inherently improbable, and do not disclose any sufficient ground for proceeding. Hence, the present criminal proceedings, being manifestly attended with mala fides, are liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the FIR dated 24.10.2025 has been lodged on the basis of clear and specific allegations made by the complainant, which disclose the commission of cognizable offences under the B.N.S., and therefore the investigation cannot be throttled at this preliminary stage. It is argued that the plea of mala fides or the petitioner’s social or financial status is irrelevant when the complaint on its 4 face discloses a prima facie case. The contention that the incident occurred at a busy chowk or that the amount involved is small cannot be grounds to doubt the complainant’s version at this stage, as these are matters of evidence to be tested during trial. It is thus contended that the investigation must be allowed to proceed in accordance with law and the petition seeking quashing of the FIR deserves to be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Having considered the submissions of both sides as well as the material placed on record, this Court is of the view that the allegations contained in the impugned FIR dated 24.10.2025 disclose the commission of cognizable offences and warrant investigation. The contentions raised by the petitioner regarding his social status, business reputation, alleged past conduct of the complainant, or improbability of the incident, cannot be looked into, at this stage and are matters for trial. The plea of mala fides, without any conclusive material, cannot by itself be a ground for quashing an FIR that otherwise contains specific allegations constituting an offence under law. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case, which does not fall within the narrow category of cases where allegations are patently absurd or inherently improbable. Since the FIR, prima facie discloses an offence and 5 the investigation is at a initial stage, interference under Section 528 BNSS is unwarranted. 7. Accordingly, the CRMP is found to be devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti