1 2026:CGHC:5896-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 347 of 2026 1 - Chandrika Prasad Sonwani S/o Ghasiyaram Sonwani Aged About 66 Years R/o Hirri, Thana Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Thana Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Yashoda Sahu W/o Yaadram Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Hirri, Thana Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03 .02.2026 SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.02.05 14:58:42 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Ankur Diwan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/ respondent. 2. The petitioner has filed the present CrMP under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023, and prayed for the following reliefs:- 1. That, this Hon'ble Court may be kindly pleased to call for the entire records for its kind perusal. 2. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the impugned Charge-sheet, FIR No. 350/2025 registered vide dated 18.07.2025 for offence u/s 296,351(2), 331(3), 74, 75(1) (i).76 of the BNS 2023 registered at PS Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, CG against the petitioner, & also quashing & setting aside of the charges framed dated 07.01.2026 u/s 77, 74, 75(1)(i), 79, 76, 351(2), 296, 332c BNS & the further criminal proceedings pursuant to FIR No. 350/2025 in Sessions Trial No. 52/2025 initiated against the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 3. Any, other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper may also be granted, in the interest of justice. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are neighbours and reside in the same village. An allegation has been made that on 18.07.2025 at about 9:00 AM, the petitioner trespassed into the house of the complainant and committed acts amounting to sexual harassment, assault, and criminal intimidation. It is alleged that after the complainant’s husband returned home, she narrated the incident to him, pursuant to which a written complaint was lodged. On 3 the basis of the said complaint, FIR No. 350/2025 dated 18.07.2025 was registered at Police Station Sarangarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) against the petitioner for offences under Sections 296, 351(2), 331(3), 74, 75(1)(i) and 76 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNS,2023”). The petitioner was granted bail by the Learned Trial Court vide order dated 20.07.2025. Thereafter, on 07.01.2026, charges were framed against the petitioner under Sections 77, 74, 75(1)(i), 79, 76, 351(2), 296 and 332(c) of the BNS, 2023. Earlier, the petitioner had filed CRMP No. 189/2026, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.01.2026, granting liberty to challenge the charges framed. Hence, the present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet, charges framed and all consequential criminal proceedings, as continuation thereof would amount to abuse of the process of law and miscarriage of justice. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who is an old aged person has been falsely implicated by the respondent No. 2 that there was an old dispute exist between the parties with respect to the boundary wall of their houses and on 24.07.2025, the wife of the petitioner made a complaint to Police but no action has been taken on her complaint and the present FIR is the counter blast of the said complaint. Even if the entire allegations made in the FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, no prima facie offence under Sections 296, 351(2), 331(3), 74, 75(1)(i) or 76 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is made out against the petitioner. The allegations are vague, baseless and founded on conjectures and surmises, unsupported by any independent witness, medical evidence 4 or reliable material, and there is no proof of trespass or commission of any wrongful act. Section 296 BNS is wholly inapplicable as the alleged incident is stated to have occurred inside a private house and not at a public place. The delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of corroborative evidence, the unreliable site map and the admitted prior dispute between the parties clearly indicate mala-fide intention to falsely implicate the petitioner. It is a settled principle of law that where the allegations, even if taken on their face value, do not constitute any offence or disclose a case worth trial, the FIR and all consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS, and continuation of the present criminal proceedings would result in grave miscarriage of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent would submit that the impugned FIR No. 350/2025 and the charge-sheet disclose a clear prima facie case against the petitioner and do not warrant interference at this preliminary stage. The allegations in the FIR indicate that the victim, who was a married woman, was taking a bath when the petitioner allegedly trespassed over the boundary wall and attempted to outrage her modesty. These allegations are supported by the statement of the complainant. At the stage of consideration of a petition under Section 528 BNSS, this Hon’ble Court cannot undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence or examine the defence of the accused. The charges have already been framed by the competent court after due application of mind, and the continuation of proceedings cannot be termed as abuse of process of law. It is a settled principle that where the FIR and charge-sheet disclose ingredients of the alleged offences, criminal proceedings 5 should not be scuttled at the threshold, that once the FIR has been registered, it has to be investigated and taken to its logical end. After investigation charge-sheet has been filed. Thus, at this stage, no interference is warranted in view of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021 (M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others) and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR and document annexed with the petition. 7. 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 528 of BNSS/482 of the Cr.P.C. 8. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), 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 528 of BNSS/482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court 6 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 528 of BNSS/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. 9. From perusal of the written complaint which is annexed at Page No. 21 of the present petition, it transpires that there are allegation of outraging the modesty of the complainant and immediately thereafter, she made written complaint to the Police. In the MLC report, pain in occipital region and right upper chest were noticed by the doctor. Further the torn cloths of the victim has been seized by the Police which are sufficient for registration of the FIR and filing the charge- sheet and to frame charge. 10. Further in the matter of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Shiv Charan Bansal and Others, 2020 (2) SCC 290, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or a roving inquiry into the same and has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case has been made out against the accused. The probative value of evidence cannot be looked into, at the stage of framing of charge. 11. After having gone through the allegations made in the impugned FIR and the charge-sheet, in our humble opinion it cannot be said that no offence whatsoever is disclosed against the petitioner as there is allegation of outraging the modesty of the complainant and in the light 7 of judgment passed by the Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Shiv Charan Bansal (Supra), we do not find any good ground for interference as it cannot be said that no offence is disclosed. 12. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika