1 2025:CGHC:8108-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 585 of 2025 Prahlad Sharma S/o Mohan Sharma Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Lilapur PS Chilphi Chowki Dindori District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh and Present R/o Mahamaya Chowk, Pandaria, District- Kabirdham ( C.G. ). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- Chilphi, District- Mungeli (C.G.) 2. Prabhat Kumar Sahu S/o Lt. Ramanuj Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Village- Lilapur, Chilphi District- Mungeli (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sachin Nidhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 1/State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.02.18 15:39:09 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash: (i) FIR No. 121 of 2024 dated 12.09.2024, registered at Police Station – Chilphi, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence under Section 299 and 351(2) of BNS. (ii) Charge-sheet No. 125 of 2024 dated 20.10.2024 filed before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.), for the offence under Section 299 and 351(2) of BNS arising out of Crime No. 121 of 2024. (iii) The cognizance order dated 21.10.2024 taken by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) in a Criminal Case No. 1045 of 2024 for the offence under Section 299 and 351(2) of BNS and whole consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1045 of 224 in State of Chhattisgarh vs. Prahlad Sharma. Against the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent No. 2 has lodged a complaint against the petitioner on the basis of the doubt, regarding one letter which contains the filthy language against the present 3 respondent No. 2 and the caste of Sahu Samaj and also uses a filthy language against the goddess of the Sahu Samaj. On the basis of above written report of the respondent No. 2, Chilphi Police Station has registered a crime against the petitioner under Section 299 and 351(2) of BNS under Crime No. 121 of 2024. After lodging the aforesaid FIR against the petitioner, the Police authority has arrested the petitioner on 20.09.2024. The Police authority has started the investigation and filed the charge-sheet No. 125 of 2024 dated 20.10.2024 for the offence under Section 299 and 351(2) of BNS against the petitioner. After filing of the aforesaid charge-sheet, the cognizance has been taken by the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) and the Criminal Case No. 1045 of 2024 has been registered for the offence under Section 299 and 351(2) of BNS. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially a FIR bearing No. 86 of 2024 dated 25.05.2024, registered at P.S.- Chilphi, Dist.- Mungeli (C.G) for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 294, 506, 323 and 34 of the IPC has been registered against the petitioner and his family members by his sister-in-law in connivance with the complainant and his family member, namely, Deva Sahu (nephew of complainant- Prabhat Sahu), because of the love affairs between Deva Sahu and Sister-in-law of the present petitioner. He also submits that looking to the case of the petitioner that prima facie no case has been made out, the learned Court below has already granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner along with the family members vide order dated 31.05.2024. 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the nuisance created by the complainant not stopped, and again on 4 11.08.2024, the relative of the complainant, namely Deva Sahu & Premchand Sahu on the instance of the complainant has assaulted the petitioner by way of hand & fist, even also uses abusive/filthy language against the petitioner as well as against the Brahmin Caste. Because of the aforesaid incident, the petitioner has lodged an FIR No. 111 of 2024 dated 11.08.2024 before the P.S.- Chilphi, Dist. Mungeli (C.G.) and on the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the offence under Section 115(2), 126(2), 296, 3(5) and 351(2) of the BNS has been registered. He also submits that as because of the aforesaid complaint dated 11.08.2024 made by the petitioner, on the very next date i.e. on 12.08.2024 as a counter blast, a complaint has been made by the complainant, namely, Prabhat Kumar Sahu for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 3(5), 324(4), 333 and 351(2) of the BNS has been registered against the petitioner along with the family members. After that, the petitioner has filed the anticipatory bail for the aforesaid Crime No. 112 of 2024 before this Court having MCRCA No.1003 of 2024 which has been allowed vide order dated 04.09.2024. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the personal grudge of the complainant not fulfilled, then again, the complainant has alleged the petitioner in the present case having Crime No. 121 of 2024 registered at P.S.-Chilphi dated 12.09.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 299 and 351(2) of the BNS. He further states that the present FIR has been registered against the petitioner only on the basis of the unseen circumstance that has falsely been created by the complainant by instigating the common people of Sahu Samaj, because the forged letter which has shown to be send by the petitioner to the complainant contains 5 the deliberate and malicious language against the Goddess of the Sahu Samaj, which is used as a tool for the crowd gathering and the crowd has pressurize the Police authority to registered the FIR against the present petitioner and on the undue pressure of the crowd of the Sahu Samaj, the Police authority has directly registered the FIR bearing Crime No. 121 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 299 and 351(2) of the BNS without complying the necessary provision of Section 173(3) of the BNSS, in which it has been clearly mention that the limitation of 14 days for the pre- investigation of any complaint is provide, but the Police authority has not complied with the aforesaid provision and directly registered the FIR against the petitioner. 7. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from the FIR the OfÏcer-in-charge of the aforesaid FIR is also belong to the same community of Sahu Samaj, that's why the FIR has been lodged directly without complying the provision of law. He also contended that this Court has already granted bail in Crime No. 121 of 2024 having MCRC No. 7015 of 2024 vide order dated 07.11.2024. He would submit that as per the consignment status got from the website of the Indian Post, i.e. www.indianpost.gov.in, the ofÏcial website of the Indian Post, which clearly reflects that the status of the consignment number EC171107334IN which is afÏxed in the alleged letter/speed post as per the story of the prosecution (consignment receipt also the part of the charge-sheet). As per the consignment report the item has been booked on 31.08.2024 at Pandatarai BO and finally the item has been delivered on 19.09.2024, but as per the complaint made by the complainant Prabhat Sahu, he has received the Speed Post on 11.09.2024, but the 6 consignment status clearly reflects that the item has been delivered on 19.09.2024. The aforesaid consignment status clearly shows that the item has been delivered on 19.09.2024, but the complainant has got the letter/speed post on 11.09.2024, which is practically impossible and it shows the conduct of the complainant, who is the main accused because the complainant made a false complaint on the basis of the letter who has send by the complainant himself, because without delivery of the item, no one can get the letter/speed post. Because of the conduct of the complainant, namely, Prabhat Sahu, a situation of riot has been arises between the Sahu Community as because of the contents of the alleged letter, which is apparent from the newspaper cutting. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even after the filling of the charge-sheet dated 20.10.2024, no report of the hand writing expert present in the charge-sheet. When the specimen signature and signature/writing present in the alleged letter matches, then it clearly reflects that both of the writing skill are different and alleged letter not written by the present petitioner. Hence, this petition. 9. On the other, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the investigation has been done strictly in accordance with law and after completion of investigation the final report/charge-sheet has been filed before the trial Court and the learned trial Court had already taken the cognizance and the trial is in progress. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7 11. 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 of the Constitution of India or inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS. 12. In the present case, admittedly, after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner and the learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the evidences and upon finding prima facie evidence regarding commission of offences the trial has been initiated against the petitioner. 13. From perusal of the FIR, charge-sheet and order taking cognizance, it transpires that petitioner written a letter to complainant, which contains the filthy language against the complainant and the caste of Sahu Samaj and also uses a filthy language against the goddess of the Sahu Samaj, therefore, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence, the present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 14. In view of the above, we do not find it a fit case to quash the FIR bearing Crime No. 121 of 2024 dated 12.09.2024, charge-sheet No. 125 of 2024 dated 20.10.2024 filed by the Police Station Chilphi, District 8 Mungeli (C.G.) and the order taking cognizance dated 21.10.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 299 and 351(2) of the BNS and the consequential criminal proceedings bearing Criminal Case No. 1045 of 2024 pending before the trial Court, as such, this petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan