1 2026:CGHC:19225-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1166 of 2026 Nitesh Gupta S/o Kishor Gupta Aged About 40 Years R/o Chandra Nagar, Road-15, Plot No. - 390, Bhilai Nagar, Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station, Bhilai Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Dr. Vinay Sharma S/o Late Ram Guljari Sharma Aged About 61 Years R/o Quarter No. 1/a, Road No. 55, Sector 08, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Virendra Kashyap, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Add. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 27.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Virendra Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.04.28 10:50:15 +0530 2 General for the respondent No.1 / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “a) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR bearing Crime No. 682/2025 dated 09.12.2025, registered for the offences under Sections 191(2), 221, 296, 324(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Bhilai Nagar, District Durg (C.G.), and also including the offences which were added thereafter in the charge-sheet under Sections 343, 61(2) BNS, as well as Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1994, as being illegal, arbitrary and without any material on record (Annexure P-1). b) That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to quash and set aside the charge-sheet dated 14.02.2026 bearing No. 13/2026, filed for the offences under Sections 191(2), 221, 296, 324(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and also including the offences which were added thereafter in the charge-sheet under Sections 343, 61(2) BNS, as well as Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1994, as being unsustainable in law. (Annexure P-2). c) That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 4.02.2026 .02.2026 passed by the Learned 3 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, taking cognizance in Criminal Case No. 2855/2026, in offences under Sections 191(2), 221, 296, 324(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and also including the offences which were added thereafter in the charge-sheet under Sections 343, 61(2) BNS, as well as Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1994 as well as all consequential and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, including proceedings under the sections added thereafter in the charge-sheet, pending before the said Court against the petitioner herein (Annexure P-3).” 3. The facts of the case, as emerging from the record, are that the present case arises out of registration of FIR bearing Crime No. 682/2025 dated 09.12.2025 at Police Station Bhilai Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) against the Petitioner under Sections 191(2), 221, 296, 324(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which came to be lodged without any proper preliminary enquiry and on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations, thereby causing serious prejudice to the reputation and career of the petitioner. As per the prosecution version, on 09.12.2025 at about 12:40 PM, during the course of administrative and examination-related work at Kalyan College, Sector-07, Bhilai Nagar, certain persons including the present petitioner along with others allegedly entered the college premises, raised slogans, used abusive language, created 4 disturbance in the institutional functioning, obstructed official duties of the administration and allegedly caused damage to certain property, thereby creating an atmosphere of disorder. Further, on the basis of such allegations, the investigating agency proceeded to file a charge-sheet dated 04.02.2026 bearing No. 13/2026 for offences under Sections 191(2), 221, 296, 324(1), 343 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 along with Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1994, pursuant to which Criminal Case No. 2885/2026 is pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg. Cognizance has been taken vide order dated 04.02.2026, however, no charge has been framed till date, and the proceedings are stated to be devoid of any cogent or substantive material directly implicating the petitioner. Earlier, the petitioner had approached the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur by way of CRMP No. 1030 of 2026 challenging the said FIR, charge-sheet and cognizance order, which petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.04.2026 with liberty to file a fresh petition after impleading the complainant as a necessary party and upon payment of costs of Rs.1,000/-, and the present petition has accordingly been instituted in compliance with the said liberty for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to prevent abuse of the process of law. 5 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned First Information Report bearing Crime No. 382/2025 dated 09.12.2025 registered at Police Station Bhilai Nagar, District Durg (C.G.), along with the consequential charge-sheet invoking Sections 191(2), 221, 296, 324(1), 343 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 as well as Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1994, is wholly unsustainable in law and on facts, having been initiated without any proper preliminary enquiry and on the basis of patently false, vague and motivated allegations, thereby causing grave prejudice to the petitioner’s reputation and professional standing. It is submitted that the very foundation of the prosecution case stands demolished in view of the CCTV footage of the premises, which clearly establishes that the petitioner was not present at the alleged place of occurrence, directly contradicting the complainant’s version and rendering the allegations inherently improbable. Further, despite such clear exculpatory evidence, the continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to gross abuse of the process of law and warrants interference under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner, being a respected Assistant Professor at Kalyan College, has consistently raised legitimate concerns regarding service conditions, financial irregularities, provident fund issues and administrative lapses through lawful 6 means including RTI applications against the present Principal, which has led to personal animosity and ulterior motives, culminating in the present FIR being lodged as a counterblast to such disclosures. Further, the FIR itself suffers from unexplained and suspicious delay of approximately seven hours despite the proximity of the police station, coupled with the complainant’s own admission that the complaint was filed “after deliberation”, thereby casting serious doubt on its authenticity and suggesting afterthought and embellishment; that significantly, none of the co- accused persons, in their statements recorded during investigation, have named or attributed any role to the petitioner, and there exists a material contradiction between the original complaint, wherein the petitioner was stated to have cooperated, and the FIR version alleging instigation, thereby exposing clear improvement and falsification. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no incriminating material, document or article has been seized from the petitioner, nor is there any evidence establishing his presence, participation or conspiracy, making the prosecution entirely baseless. The petitioner, upon learning of his false implication, promptly approached the Superintendent of Police expressing willingness to cooperate, however, the Investigating Officer has deliberately withheld and not annexed the said application with the charge-sheet, which reflects lack of fairness, suppression of material evidence and a tainted investigation, and therefore, in the 7 totality of circumstances, the impugned proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide, instituted out of personal vendetta and professional rivalry, and are liable to be quashed to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of law. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposing the petition submits that the charge-sheet in the present case has already been duly filed after completion of investigation, and cognizance thereof has been taken by the learned jurisdictional court. It is further submitted that the investigation has been concluded in accordance with law, and the material collected during the course of investigation prima facie discloses the commission of offences alleged against the accused persons. The State further submits that since the case has now reached the stage of trial, with filing of charge-sheet, the custodial interrogation of the accused is no longer required, and the matter is to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence already collected and presented before the Court. 7. It is further submitted by the learned State counsel that the brief facts emerging from the charge-sheet disclose that on 09.12.2025 at about 12:40 p.m., during the ongoing process of examination form verification and signing at Kalyan Mahavidyalaya, the accused persons, namely Akash Kannaujiya and others, allegedly entered the college premises without authorization and created a disturbance by using abusive language and interfering with official work. It is alleged that they forcibly handled government documents kept on the table, tore examination forms, and caused 8 damage by spilling ink, besides defacing the nameplate and damaging office property, thereby obstructing official functioning and creating panic among the staff. It is further alleged that the accused acted in furtherance of a common intention and pre- planned conspiracy, leading to registration of offences under Sections 343, 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, and Section 3 of the relevant State enactment relating to defacement of property. The State thus submits that the allegations are serious in nature and are supported by statements of witnesses recorded during investigation. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing at some length prays to withdraw the present petition. 10. However, this Court, upon careful consideration of the submissions advanced as well as the nature and gravity of allegations reflected from the record, does not find any good ground to allow the prayer of withdrawal made by the counsel for the petitioner. 11. The Court finds that the issues raised in the present petition have been examined on merits in light of the pleadings, the impugned action, and the attendant circumstances emerging from the case record. It further appears that the allegations pertain to 9 interference with official functioning within an educational institution, including alleged damage to government records, defacement of property, and obstruction of administrative work. It is specifically alleged that the petitioner forcibly handled government documents kept on the table, tore examination forms, caused damage by spilling ink, and also defaced the nameplate and damaged office property, thereby obstructing official functioning and creating panic among the staff, which are matters of public concern and cannot be lightly brushed aside at the instance of withdrawal at this stage. The material collected during investigation, as reflected in the charge-sheet already filed and cognizance taken, prima facie discloses the involvement of the accused persons in the alleged incident, which has serious ramifications on the functioning of public office and discipline within institutional premises. In view of the above, and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the present petition.. 12. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet