1 2025:CGHC:9061-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 659 of 2025 1 - Manoj Kumar Dansena S/o Late Nohar Sai Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Kumarta, Police Station Kapu, District Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Narendra Dansena S/o Late Nohar Sai Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Ludeg, Police Station Patthalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) 3 - Shivaji Dansena S/o Late Ramkumar Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Kachhar (Sendaribahar), Police Station Patthalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Patthalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) 2 - Mohan Yadav S/o Late Samaru Yadav Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Purani Basti, Patthalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) (Complainant) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr.Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr.Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 21.02.2025 BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.02.22 11:05:24 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr.Ishwar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No.1/State. 2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners with following prayer: “1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and kindly be pleased to quash the FIR/Crime No.163/2024 registered under Section 296, 351 (3), 115 (2) and 3 (5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita. 2. That, this Hon'ble Court further be pleased to quash the entire charge sheet in relating to Crime No.161/2024 under Section under Section 296, 351 (3), 115 (2) and 3 (5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita. 3. That, this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to quash the order dated 16-01-2025 passed in Criminal Case No.07/2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Patthalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.), in which the cognizance has been taken for the offence under Section 296, 351(3), 115 (2) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Naya Sanhita, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 12-07-2024, the complainant made written complaint against the petitioners with the allegation that when the respondent No.2/complainant being a advocate practicing at Bar Association Patthalgaon and came to participate in his Court proceeding, at that time the petitioner No.1 came and by using filthy language threatened the complainant by saying that you have purchased disputed land from his party and when the complainant trying to stop him, then he called other co-accused person i.e. petitioner No.2 & 3 and assaulted the complainant by hand and fist. Further content of the written complaint is that the complainant being an advocate practicing at Patthalgaon Advocate Bar Association and presented at the Court premises and when the 3 altercation took place between them, at that time other advocates who are presented near the place of incident, stopped them and by the incident, the complainant is under the threat by the act of petitioners. 4. On the basis of said complaint, the FIR has been registered against the petitioners on 31-07-2024 for the offence under Section 296, 351 (2), 115 (2) read with Section 3 (3) of B.N.S. and after completion of investigation, under aforementioned sections, charge sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken vide order dated 16-01-2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Patthalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) against the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the act of the respondent police authority is arbitrary. illegal and circumstances of the case. The petitioner No.1 is also practicing advocate of Bar Association Dharamjaigarh and on the date of incident, the petitioner No.1 also came to hearing of his case in which he was engaged as Advocate and by taking the benefit of local counsel, the complainant started abusing the petitioner No.1 and he has assaulted the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.1 has not committed any crime. He further submits that the petitioner No.1 has also made written complaint against the complainant on 12-07-2024, on which the FIR has been registered on 30-07-2024 against, which is prior to the FIR by the complainant, in which the offence under Section 115 (2), 296, 351 (2) of B.N.S. has been registered in relating to the Crime No.161/2024 registered at Police Station Patthalgaon, in which the charge sheet has been filed under Section 296, 351 (2), 115 (2) and 117 (2) of B.N.S. and cognizance has also been taken by the concerned Court on 24- 12-2024. he also submits that on the said date i.e. on 12-07-2024, the petitioner No.3 namely Shivajee also came to attend his case, in which his appearance was marked in which the petitioner No.1 was appointed as 4 Advocate in relating to Criminal Case No.522/2019 and for hearing of this case, the petitioner No.1 & 3 came to the place of incident and they have not committed any offence, which was leveled against them by the complainant. Looking to the copy of charge sheet of Crime No.161/2024, in which the complainant is the accused in which the petitioner No.1 is the complainant and also got injuries and MLC has been conducted, because the petitioner No.1 received grievous injury upon his ear and the petitioner No.1 lost his hearing, therefore the petitioner No.2 who is real brother came to place of incident, but by taking the benefit of local advocate of Patthalgaon, the complainant implicate all the petitioners in the present case, which shows that the complainant falsely implicated the petitioners in the false case. He contended that the main crux of the case is that the petitioner No.1 is engaged by Saldev Tigga & others and the complainant purchased a disputed land, which is belongs to Saldev Tigga and against the complainant, the petitioner No.1 has filed various litigations before the various tribunals and therefore to take revenge, the complainant falsely implicated the petitioner No.1 in this case and recently, the petitioner No.1 filed the case under Section 170 (A) and 170 (B) of Land Revenue Code against the complainant before the Sub Divisional OfÏcer, Patthalgaon and therefore the complainant falsely implicated the petitioner No.1 along with the petitioner No.2 & 3 to make pressure upon the petitioner No.1 to take back the proceeding made against him. He also contended that the complainant is also elected as Vice President at Bar Association Patthalgaon and therefore by taking benefit of his post, the complainant made false complaint and FIR against the petitioners, which is liable to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent No.1 opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners 5 and submits that the FIR discloses prima facie offence and as such, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned FIR produced by the learned State counsel. 8. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well- settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 9. In the well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, the Apex Court held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Guidelines are as follows: “(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety to do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police ofÏcers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 156(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a 6 case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police ofÏcer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can every reach a just conclusion that there is sufÏcient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efÏcacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 10. In case of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill; reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi; reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors; reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Apex Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a 7 prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 11. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 12. Keeping in view the aforesaid law and considering the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and also considering the allegations and counter allegations against each other, we are of the considered view that the submissions raised by learned counsel for petitioner relate to the questions of fact, and thus, can not be examined by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The appreciation of evidence or the reliability of the allegations cannot be examined at this stage. 13. From the above stated case laws it is apparent that the above stated contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners can not be examined by this Court. The adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record, it can not be held that the 8 impugned criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. FIR or criminal proceedings can be quashed only in accordance with parameters laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. 14. From the perusal of impugned FIR, which discloses the cognizable offence and the only ground which has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the earlier an FIR was lodged from the side of petitioners against the complainant and just immediately thereafter the impugned FIR has been lodged, which the petitioners have challenged in the instant petition for quashing the same being a counter blast. 15. In the instant case, from the perusal of the FIR lodged by the complainant, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. The present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned FIR. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. 16. In view of aforesaid, the petition lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. 17. The CRMP is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Bablu