1 2026:CGHC:8996-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 547 of 2026 1 - Rakesh Kushwaha S/o Vishnu Prasad Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Syahi, Police Station- Basantpur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj C.G. 2 - Praveen @ Chotaiya S/o Raghuram Kushwaha Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Syahi, Police Station- Basantpur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Basantpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G. 2 - Gayatri Agariya W/o Chhotelal Agariya R/o Village- Syahi, Police Station- Basantpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr.Sumit Singh Rathore For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 20.02.2026 BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.02.20 15:53:32 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr.Sumit Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief(s): “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and may kindly be pleased to quash the cognizance order dated 27.10.2025 taken by the learned Special Judge (SC ST Prevention of Atrocities Act), Balrampur at Ramnujganj, District - Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) registering the Special Sessions (Atrocities) Case No. 49/2025, and further be pleased to quash the Charges dated 13.11.2025 framed against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 74, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 3(1)(b)(i) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Final Report No. 140/2025 dated 23.10.2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 74, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 3(1)(b)(i) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Crime No. 172/2025 dated 14.09.2025 registered at Police Station - Basantpur, District - Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 74, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 3(1)(b)(i) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 3 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act along with all consequential proceedings against the applicants; in the interest of justice.” 3. The complainant lodged an FIR at Police Station Basantpur alleging that on 10.09.2025 at about 8:00 P.M., while she was returning home after going outside, the accused persons namely Rajkumar Kushwaha, Praveen alias Chhotaiya Kushwaha, and Rakesh Kushwaha intercepted her with wrongful intent. It was alleged that they restrained her, tore her blouse, and assaulted her. Upon her raising alarm, her sister-in-law arrived, and similar allegations were made regarding misbehavior with her. Based on the said report, an offence was registered and investigation commenced. 4. During investigation, accused Rajkumar Kushwaha submitted a representation stating that at the time of the alleged incident he was present at his rented accommodation in Rajkheta, Basantpur. The Cyber Cell verified his Call Detail Records (CDR), which confirmed his presence at the said location. Statements of independent witnesses and his landlord were also recorded. Consequently, finding his alibi established, his name was deleted from the case. 5. The remaining accused persons, Rakesh Kushwaha and Praveen alias Chhotaiya Kushwaha, appeared pursuant to notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 4 After completion of investigation, Charge Sheet No. 140/2025 dated 23.10.2025 was filed before the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Ramanujganj for offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 74, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(1)(b) (i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The case is presently pending as Special Sessions (Atrocities) Case No. 49/2025. 6. Charges were framed against the present petitioners on 13.11.2025. The applicants have denied the allegations and contend that they have been falsely implicated. 7. The defence case is that a dispute exists regarding government land bearing Khasra No. 102/1 situated in Village Syahi, where a Shiv Chabutara is located and public religious activities are conducted. The complainant party allegedly attempted illegal construction over the said land. The petitioners approached the Naib Tahsildar, Wadrafnagar, who passed a stay order dated 12.06.2025 restraining the construction. Aggrieved by the said stay order, the complainant party allegedly lodged the present false FIR due to prior enmity arising out of the land dispute. 8. The petitioners were granted regular bail by this Court in CRA No. 2320/2025 vide order dated 24.11.2025. They contend that, similar to co-accused Rajkumar Kushwaha whose presence elsewhere was verified through CDR and who was exonerated, no such verification was conducted in their case, and they have been 5 falsely implicated due to the ongoing land dispute. Hence, this petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the continuation of the criminal proceedings is a gross abuse of the process of law and is liable to be quashed in the interest of justice. The petitioners have been falsely implicated due to a pre-existing enmity arising out of a land dispute concerning government land bearing Khasra No. 102/1 situated in village Syahi. The complainant party was allegedly attempting illegal construction over the said land, and upon the petitioners’ complaint, the Naib Tahsildar, Wadrafnagar, passed a stay order dated 12.06.2025 restraining such construction. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant party lodged the present false FIR with mala fide intent. He further submits that a bare reading of the FIR and charge sheet reveals vague and omnibus allegations lacking the specific ingredients necessary to constitute offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 74, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(1)(b)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution case rests solely on interested witnesses, without any independent corroboration. He also submits that during investigation, one of the named accused, Rajkumar Kushwaha, was exonerated after his Call Detail Records (CDR) established his presence elsewhere at the time of the alleged incident. However, despite the petitioners consistently asserting their alibi, 6 no similar verification of their CDR or location data was conducted. Such selective investigation demonstrates mala fide intent and violates the principles of fair and impartial investigation guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners submit that their CDR and location records would equally establish their innocence, but the investigating agency proceeded mechanically against them. It is contended that the order of cognizance dated 27.10.2025 and the order framing charges dated 13.11.2025 have been passed mechanically and without due application of judicial mind. The learned trial court failed to consider material contradictions in the prosecution case, including the exoneration of a co-accused and the apparent motive for false implication arising from the land dispute. Learned counsel submits that the essential ingredients of the offence under the SC/ST Act are not satisfied. There is no specific allegation indicating caste-based insult, humiliation, or intent to demean the complainant on account of caste. The provisions of the SC/ST Act appear to have been invoked only to attract stringent penal consequences and to defeat the petitioners’ statutory remedies. It is further submitted that the alleged confessional statements recorded during investigation are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The affidavits obtained under Section 35(1)(b) (ii) of the BNSS were allegedly extracted under pressure, and the checklist under Section 35(3) was completed in a perfunctory 7 manner, thereby vitiating the investigation. He contended that prosecution story is inherently improbable. The alleged incident is stated to have occurred at 8:00 PM in a village setting, yet no independent witness from the vicinity has supported the complainant’s version despite the claim of alarm and screaming. Furthermore, there is an unexplained delay of four days in lodging the FIR, which casts serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations. In view of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prays that this Court may be pleased to quash the FIR, charge sheet, cognizance order dated 27.10.2025, charge-framing order dated 13.11.2025, and all consequential proceedings, as continuation thereof would amount to misuse of the criminal justice system and result in grave miscarriage of justice. 10. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1/State opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and submits that the FIR, statements of the victims, and material collected during investigation clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences. At this stage, the Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case exists, and not to meticulously evaluate the evidence. It is submitted that the FIR contains specific and categorical allegations against the present petitioners regarding assault, use of criminal force with wrongful intent, and outraging the modesty of the complainant and her sister-in-law. The statements recorded 8 under the relevant provisions of law corroborate the version of the complainant. Therefore, it cannot be said that the allegations are vague or omnibus. Learned Government Advocate submits that the investigation was conducted fairly and in accordance with law. During investigation, one co-accused, Rajkumar Kushwaha, was exonerated after verification of his Call Detail Records (CDR) established his absence from the place of occurrence. The exoneration of one accused does not automatically entitle the present petitioners to similar relief. The material collected against the petitioners was found sufficient to proceed against them, and therefore a charge sheet was filed. The plea of alibi raised by the petitioners is a matter of evidence and can only be adjudicated during trial. Such a defence cannot be examined in proceedings seeking quashment, as it requires appreciation of factual evidence, which is beyond the scope of jurisdiction at this preliminary stage. It is submitted that the allegations, as made in the FIR and supported by the statements of the victims, prima facie attract the provisions of Sections 296, 115(2), 74, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as Section 3(1)(b)(i) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The question whether the offence under the SC/ST Act is ultimately proved is a matter for trial, and at this stage, detailed scrutiny of evidence is impermissible. Learned Government Advocate submits that the learned Special Judge has applied judicial mind while taking cognizance and framing charges. At the stage of framing of 9 charge, the Court is required only to ascertain whether there is sufficient ground to proceed. The impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference. He contended that the alleged delay of four days in lodging the FIR has been sufficiently explained in the statements of the complainant, and in offences involving modesty and social stigma, some delay is natural and cannot be treated as fatal to the prosecution case at this stage. It is lastly submitted that the inherent powers of this Hon’ble Court are to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. Since the FIR and charge sheet disclose a prima facie case and the matter involves disputed questions of fact requiring trial, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the documents appended with petition. 12. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for interference is made out. 13. At the outset, it is well settled that the inherent powers of this Court for quashment of FIR or criminal proceedings are to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and only in cases where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence. At this stage, the Court is not required to undertake a meticulous examination of evidence or 10 adjudicate disputed questions of fact. 14. In the present case, a plain reading of the FIR and the statements recorded during investigation discloses specific and direct allegations against the petitioners regarding assault and use of criminal force with wrongful intent. The charge sheet has been filed after completion of investigation, and the learned Special Judge has taken cognizance and framed charges upon being satisfied that sufficient grounds exist to proceed. It cannot be said that the allegations are so absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person could reach a conclusion that an offence is made out. 15. The plea of false implication on account of a land dispute, the contention regarding selective investigation, and the defence of alibi are matters requiring appreciation of evidence. Such defences cannot be adjudicated in proceedings seeking quashment, as they involve disputed questions of fact which can only be determined during trial. 16. So far as the challenge to the applicability of the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned, the allegations in the FIR, when taken at their face value, prima facie attract the ingredients of the offences alleged. Whether the prosecution ultimately succeeds in proving the same is a matter to be decided by the trial Court on the basis of evidence led by the parties. 17. This Court does not find that the impugned orders of cognizance 11 and framing of charges suffer from any patent illegality, perversity, or non-application of mind warranting interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. In view of the foregoing discussion, no ground exists for quashment of the FIR, charge sheet, cognizance order, or consequential proceedings. 18. In view of above, the present petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu