1 2026:CGHC:586-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3040 of 2025 1 - Ramcharit Dwivedi S/o Om Narayan Dwivedi, Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 20 Behind Police Station Civil Lines Manendragarh District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) 2 - Thakur Prasad Dwivedi @ Sonu S/o Om Narayan Dwivedi, Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No. 20 Behind Police Station Civil Lines, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) 3 - Nityanand Dwivedi, S/o Om Narayan Dwivedi, Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No.17 Ram Mandir Campus, Manendragarh District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) 4 - Dinesh Kumar Dwivedi S/o Om Narayan Dwivedi, Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No. 17 Ram Mandir Campus, Manendragarh District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) 2 2 - Narsingh Vasiya S/o Kirat Prasad Vasiya, Aged About 67 Years Caste- Kori, R/o Ward No.7 Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.). ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For Respondent /State : Mr. SS Baghel, Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 2/Complainant : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate with Ms. Shivam Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06/01/2026 1. This petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 with following relief(s): “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the F.I.R no.157/2025 dated 23.09.2025 and all others subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom, registered at Police Station Manendragarh, District: Manendragarh – Chirmiri - Bharatpur (C.G.) against the petitioners for the offence punishable under section 294, 34, 506, of IPC & 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of ST/SC Act, in the interest of justice.” 3 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners in the instant petition are that complainant/respondent no.2 made a complaint against the petitioners regarding the incident dated 10.08.2023 before the police station -Manendragarh, but the police station not registered the FIR, therefore, respondent no.2 filed an application u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., on 21.04.2025 before the learned Court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Koria Distt-Baikunthpur (C.G.) for registration of FIR u/s 294, 34, 506, of IPC & 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of ST/SC Act. Said application (u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C) came to be allowed on 15.07.2025 and direction was issued to the concerned police station to register the FIR against the petitioners and investigate the matter. Thereafter, the concerned police station has registered the FIR on 23.09.2025 mentioning therein that on 10.08.2023 at about 7:00 p.m., some children's are playing cricket in temple campus, due to which, some dispute arose between the petitioners and respondent no.2 and petitioners have abused respondent no.2 by his caste; it is further mention in FIR that dispute is continuously going on between the petitioners and respondent no.2 and they had many times made a complaint against each other's. With regard to the dispute dated 10.08.2023, Istgasha no. 706/2023 offence u/s 107, 116(3) Preventive Action is registered against the petitioner Nos.1 & 4 and Istgasha no. 707/2023 offence u/s 107, 116(3) Preventive Action is registered against the Raghunath Poddar, Chote Lal Sonar and respondent No.2/Narsingh Vasiya. Due to the compliance of the order dated 4 15.07.2025, FIR no.157/2025 has been registered against the petitioners. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioner have been falsely implicated in this case, they have never abused the complainant/respondent No.2 on his caste. Due to previous dispute/enmity, respondent no.2 made a complaint against the petitioners. Petitioner no.1 has filed writ petition (WPC No.1929/2024) regarding dispute of Shri Ram Mandir Situated at Manendragarh before this Court on 21.03.2024, which is still pending. Learned Counsel further contended that daughter of respondent no.2 was working in the house of Raghunath Poddar and Raghunath Poddar has misused the caste of respondent no. 2 to settle scores as the real dispute is going on between the petitioners and Kishan Agrawal and Raghunath Poddar regarding Shri Ram Mandir because petitioner no.1 and his family members are performing daily duty of priest in said Shri Ram Mandir, but both the above persons objected to the petitioners, therefore, dispute arise between the parties. Earlier petitioners made complaints against the respondent no.2, Raghunath Poddar and Kishan Agrawal, copy of complaints are annexed as Annexure P/4. The dispute between the parties is regarding the priest of the Shri Ram Mandir. As per story of the prosecution and report of respondent no.2, alleged incident was of 10.08.2023, petitioner no.1 filed writ petition before this on 21.03.2024 against the Kishan Agrawal and Raghunath Poddar and this Court has issued 5 notice to them on 04.04.2024 and, thereafter, on 21.04.2025 with the influence of both persons, respondent no. 2 has filed an application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C before the concerned Court against the petitioners. It is very clear that this is pure civil dispute which is going on between the parties since long time regarding the priest of the Shri Ram Mandir, therefore, respondent no.2 filed application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C and after direction of Court below FIR has been registered against the petitioners. Kishan Agrawal, Raghunath Poddar and respondent no.2 made a complaint against the petitioner. In complaint of Kishan Agrawal and Raghunath Poddar, respondent no.2 is the witness and in complaint of respondent no.2, Kishan Agrawal and Ragunath Poddar are the witnesses. Kishan Agrawal and Raghunath Poddar want to evict to the petitioner from the Shri Ram Mandir, because father of the petitioners was worship in the Shri Ram Mandir as priest since 1965, but due to the greediness, Kishan Agrawal, Raghunath Poddar and respondent no.2 are trying to take possession of the Shri Ram Mandir, therefore, they are continuously harassing the petitioners. Wife of the petitioner no.4 made a complaint against the respondent no.2/complainant because he has continuously stalking to her, voyeurism and also trespassing in her house which is in the premise of the temple and also abusing and passing vulgar comments. Petitioner nos.2 and 3 are government servant, they are working as a teacher in government school at Surajpur and Bilbehra Manendragarh. On 6 the date of alleged incident, ie, on 10.08.2023, petitioner no.2 was not present at Manendragarh as he was in village -Odgi Moharsoap and distance between Manendragarh and Odgi Moharsoap near about 175 km, his signature on that date was present on the attendance register. As per respondent no.2’s story, date of incident was of 10.08.2023, however, he has filed application 156(3) of Cr.P.C on 21.04.2025, therefore, it is very clear same has been filed on account of previous enmity/dispute with the petitioners. Hence, petitioners have came-up before this Court with aforesaid prayer. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the State/Respondent No.1 submits that the Police has investigated the matter and found that the petitioners have committed the offence under SC/ST Act and also under the IPC, therefore, the police is duty bound to register the FIR against the accused and proceed in accordance with law. Hence, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/complainant contended that petitioners are not entitled to get any relief as on 10.08.2023, petitioners alongwith 12 to 15 unruly elements forcefully entered into Shri Ram Mandir premises and uttered caste basis filthy languages and many more to respondent no.2 and also to priest namely Shri Ram Krishna Das & Shri Babulal Pathak. They have also threatened to respondent no.2 to kill. Petitioner no. 2 told to respondent no. 2 that if you again see here, 7 then I will kill you and he also threatened to new priests and told if you will perform prayer here then we will break your hands, legs, and surely murdered all of you. The all-criminal activities of the petitioners were recorded on the CCTV camera of Shri Ram Mandir. Respondent no.2 felt humiliated and was extremely frightened by the threats made by petitioners. Respondent no. 2 next day reported the matter before the Police Station Manendragarh against the petitioners, but the Police Station didn't register an FIR against the petitioners, because they are very powerful, influential persons and related to Press Media. Thereafter, the victim submitted a written complaint before the S.P. of Manendragarh - Chirmiri - Bharatpur, and also sent written complaint to the I.G. Surguja Ambikapur Chhattisgarh. When no any action was taken by the police on the written complaints of respondent no.2, then he had to file an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C/175(3) BNSS before the Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act Koriya. The Court of Special Judge on the sound principles of law passed an order and, thereafter, the Police investigate the matter and found that the petitioners have committed the offence under SC/ST Act and also under the IPC, therefore, FIR was registered against the petitioners, hence, this petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned Counsel also pointed out that petitioner no.1 has filed the Writ Petition (C) No.1929/2024 before this Court on the 8 other issues based on false grounds, without any substance and trying to linger on the case. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 7. It is very clear from the above submissions and records that civil dispute is going on between the parties since long time regarding the priest of the Shri Ram Mandir. Petitioner no.1 has filed writ petition (WPC No.1929/2024) regarding dispute of Shri Ram Mandir Situated at Manendragarh before this Court on 21.03.2024, which is still pending. Earlier petitioners made complaints against the respondent no.2, Raghunath Poddar and Kishan Agrawal, copy of complaints are annexed as Annexure P/4. 8. It is also pertinent to mention here that respondent no.2 has filed application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C and after direction of Court below FIR has been registered against the petitioners. 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down the principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first information report and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the report, their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the 9 CrPC (Now Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023) should be exercised, which are as under: - “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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 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 officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 10 (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 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 officer 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 ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient 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 efficacious 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. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be 11 justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 10. The Supreme Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Sharma and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2016) 9 SCC 1 held as under:- “35. While discussing the scope and ambit of Section 482 of the Code, a similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Kal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 wherein it was held as under:- “29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court 12 has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC: 30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 13 30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? 30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arisingt therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 11. In the matter of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673, the Supreme Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of 14 Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. It was held as under: “12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.” (emphasis supplied) 12. Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), the Supreme Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 626, observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, 15 relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it was again held that where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be quashed, by exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. Considering facts of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence and dispute between the parties, particularly the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-stated judgments (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the allegations made in the FIR are inherently improbable and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the petitioners herein. In the case in hand, malicious prosecution was instituted by respondent No.2 against the petitioners. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned FIR no.157/2025 dated 23.09.2025 registered at Police Station- Manendragarh, District: Manendragarh – Chirmiri -Bharatpur (C.G.) against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 294, 34, 506 of IPC & 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of ST/SC Act and all others subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom is hereby quashed. 15. In the result, present petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/-/Sd- Sd/-/S (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE J.