1 2026:CGHC:17714-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1053 of 2026 1 - Devnandan Yadav S/o Jagarnath Yadav Aged About 68 Years (Senior Citizen) R/o Jhapidarha, P.S.- Bagicha, District- Jashpur (C.G.) 2 - Keshav Prasad Yadav S/o Jagarnath Yadav Aged About 66 Years (Senior Citizen), R/o Jhapidarha, P.S.- Bagicha, District- Jashpur (C.G.) 3 - Rajesh Yadav S/o Sukhnandan Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Jhapidarha, P.S.- Bagicha, District- Jashpur (C.G.) 4 - Ramsnehi Yadav S/o Keshav Prasad Yadav Aged About 36 Years R/o Jhapidarha, P.S.- Bagicha, District- Jashpur (C.G.) 5 - Shiv Kumar Yadav S/o Devnandan Yadav Aged About 41 Years R/o Jhapidarha, P.S.- Bagicha, District- Jashpur (C.G.) 6 - Kunti Yadav W/o Devnandan Yadav Aged About 66 Years R/o Jhapidarha, P.S.- Bagicha, District- Jashpur (C.G.) 7 - Dhanmuniya Yadav W/o Keshav Prasad Yadav Aged About 60 Years R/o Jhapidarha, P.S.- Bagicha, District- Jashpur (C.G.) 8 - Tilochani Yadav W/o Ramsnehi Yadav Aged About 38 Years R/o Jhapidarha, P.S.- Bagicha, District- Jashpur (C.G.) 9 - Sonamati Yadav W/o Shivkumar Yadav Aged About 42 Years R/o Jhapidarha, P.S.- Bagicha, District- Jashpur (C.G.) 10 - Devmuni Yadav W/o Rajesh Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Jhapidarha, P.S.- Bagicha, District- Jashpur (C.G.) 11 - Sukhnandan Yadav S/o Late Amarnath Yadav Aged About 60 Years R/o Jhapidarha, P.S.- Bagicha, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.04.20 15:11:33 +0530 2 versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho P.S.- Bagicha, Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent Of Police Jashpur, Distt.- Jashpur (C.G.) 3 - Sajjan Ram S/o Late Meghnath Ram Aged About 58 Years Caste- Nagesiya, R/o Village- Bhatthikona, Ward No. 5, Nagar Panchayat Bagicha, Distt.- Jashpur (C.G.) 4 - Martin Khalkho Assistant Sub Inspector, P.S.- Anusuchit Jati Jankalyan, Jashpur, Distt.- Jashpur (C.G.) 5 - Bhavesh Kumar Samrath Deputy Suprintendent Of Police, P.S.- Anusuchit Jati Jankalyan, Jashpur, Distt.- Jashpur (C.G.) 6 - The Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter (P.H.Q.), Nayaraipur, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Syed Ishhadil Ali, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saumya Rai, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 20.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Syed Ishhadil Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents / State. 2. The petitioners have filed this petition with following prayer: “1. that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash/set-aside the FIR, registered by 3 respondent no.1 P.S.-Bagicha, Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) under Crime no. 281/2025 under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 109, 191(3) of (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 In Short B.N.S.2023) and Sections 3(1)(d), 3(1)(e), 3(2)(v) of the (Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in short SC/ST Act on dated 30.11.2025. 2. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash/set-aside Entire charge-sheet dated- 20/02/2026 filed before learned Special Judge SCST Act Jashpur, Dist- Jashpur (C.G.) on dated 27/02/2026 bearing final report 25 no. 06/2026, in FIR No. 281/2025 under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 109, 191(3) of (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 In Short B.N.S.2023) and Sections 3(1)(d), 3(1)(e), 3(2)(v) of the (Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in short SC/ST Act on 30.11.2025 in P.S.- Bagicha, Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) and taking cognizance dated 27.02.2026 the learned Special Judge SCST Act Jashpur, Dist- Jashpur (C.G.). 3. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash/set-aside consequential proceedings against the petitioners in Special case no. 04/2026 State of C.G. v/s Devnandan Yadav and other pending before the learned Special Judge SCST Act Jashpur, Dist- Jashpur (C.G.) in which learned court taken Cognizance on dated 27.02.2026 in connection with Crime No. 281/2025 dated 30/11/2025 under Sections 296, 4 351(2), 115(2), 109, 191(3) of (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 In Short B.N.S.2023) and Sections 3(1)(d), 3(1)(e), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in short SC/ST Act, P.S.- Bagicha, Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.), and Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice. 4. That, this Hon'ble Court direct for Constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or direct an independent agency to conduct a fair, impartial, and time-bound investigation against the respondent police officer respondent no.4 and 5 who has allegedly demanded illegal gratification (bribe) from the petitioners 5. That, this Hon'ble Court direct registration of an appropriate FIR against the respondent under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and other applicable laws; 6. That, this Hon'ble Court direct initiate appropriate departmental as well as criminal proceedings against the erring police officer for abuse of official position and misconduct; 7. That, this Hon'ble Court direct to Ensure that the investigation is carried out under the supervision of this Hon'ble Court or any independent authority to prevent any bias or influence; 8. That, this Hon'ble Court direct pass any other order(s) or direction(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 5 3. The present case arises out of FIR bearing Crime No. 281/2025 dated 30.11.2025 registered at Police Station- Bagicha, District- Jashpur (C.G.) on the complaint of respondent No.3, alleging that on the said date at about 10:00 AM, while the complainant along with his family members was engaged in fencing and ploughing the disputed land, the petitioners, namely Devanandan Yadav and others, allegedly arrived armed with sticks, stones, and axes and assaulted them. However, the record reveals that the dispute is essentially civil in nature relating to possession of land, in respect of which a prior order dated 20.06.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, had directed both parties to maintain status quo, which was allegedly violated by the complainant himself by entering the land and raising construction, thereby precipitating the incident. It is further the case of the petitioners that despite their prior complaint dated 10.12.2024 regarding the complainant’s unlawful interference, no action was taken by the police, whereas the present FIR was promptly registered under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and subsequently, in an arbitrary and mala fide manner, stringent provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were also invoked without any foundational allegations attracting the essential ingredients of the said Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present FIR bearing Crime No. 281/2025 is nothing but a product of mala fide 6 intention, instituted by the complainant in collusion with the police authorities with the sole object of giving a criminal colour to a purely civil dispute relating to land. The material on record unmistakably demonstrates that the dispute pertains to possession and title over the subject land, which was already subjudice and governed by a subsisting status quo order. However, the complainant, in blatant disregard thereof, attempted to alter the nature of the property and, upon resistance, has falsely concocted a story of assault. The invocation of serious and non-bailable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with the stringent provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is wholly unwarranted and unsupported by any foundational allegations, particularly in the absence of any averment regarding caste-based abuse in the original complaint. The subsequent improvement in the prosecution case, including fabricated recovery of alleged weapons, artificial introduction of female accused at a later stage, and deliberate exaggeration of injuries, clearly indicates manipulation of the investigation to strengthen a false case. Furthermore, the existence of a counter FIR arising out of the same incident, in which no effective investigation has been conducted and even the statutory period has lapsed without filing of charge-sheet, exposes the discriminatory and biased approach of the police authorities, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings as being violative of principles of fair investigation and natural 7 justice. 5. It is further submitted that the prosecution case suffers from inherent improbabilities, material contradictions, and demonstrable falsities which strike at its very root. Several accused persons, including Shiv Kumar Yadav, have been falsely implicated despite unimpeachable evidence establishing their absence from the place of occurrence, a fact which has already been prima facie acknowledged by the this Court while granting bail. Similarly, the implication of a 70-year-old physically handicapped person, as well as female accused who were not even named in the FIR, reflects a deliberate attempt to rope in innocent persons without any basis. The prosecution story is further rendered doubtful by serious discrepancies such as conflicting dates of the alleged incident in the FIR and charge- sheet, contradictions in medical evidence, and witness statements which do not support the allegations. Independent evidence, including call detail records and witness accounts, clearly negate the presence and involvement of key accused persons at the relevant time. More gravely, the record discloses illegal demand of bribe by the police officials, and upon failure to meet such demand, false implication under stringent provisions of the SC/ST Act has been resorted to, which is further substantiated by recorded conversations forming part of the record. In such circumstances, the continuation of the present criminal proceedings is manifestly an abuse of the process of law, 8 instituted with ulterior motives to harass and pressurize the petitioners, and is therefore liable to be quashed in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the allegations made in the FIR bearing Crime No. 281/2025 disclose the commission of cognizable and serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 as well as the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the same are duly supported by statements of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses recorded during the course of investigation. It is contended that the incident in question is not merely a civil dispute, but involves allegations of unlawful assembly, assault, and use of force, which cannot be trivialized at this stage. The investigating agency, upon due inquiry, has collected sufficient material, including medical evidence, witness statements, and recovery of weapons, to substantiate the allegations, and accordingly, a charge-sheet has been filed before the competent court. The learned State counsel further submits that the pleas raised by the petitioners regarding false implication, contradictions, alibi, and alleged mala fides involve disputed questions of fact which require appreciation of evidence and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings of this nature. It is also contended that the invocation of provisions under the SC/ST Act has been made on the basis of material collected during investigation, and the same cannot be interfered with lightly at the 9 threshold. 7. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court, upon perusal of the charge-sheet and the material placed on record, has already taken cognizance of the offences and found sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused persons. Once cognizance has been validly taken, the correctness or otherwise of the allegations and the sufficiency of evidence are matters to be examined during trial, and interference at this stage would amount to premature appreciation of evidence. The State thus contends that the present petition, seeking quashment of FIR and consequential proceedings, is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed, as the petitioners have an efficacious remedy to establish their defence before the trial Court in accordance with law. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 9. Considering the rival submissions and material on record, it is observed that the FIR bearing Crime No. 281/2025 arises out of an incident in respect of which a counter FIR has also been registered, thereby indicating that the occurrence is not one-sided but involves rival versions of the same transaction. The record further reveals that, pursuant to investigation, the police have already filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court and the learned trial Court, upon due consideration of the material collected during investigation, has taken cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused persons. At this stage, the 10 contentions raised by the petitioners relating to false implication, alibi, contradictions in evidence, and alleged mala fides on the part of the complainant and the police authorities are essentially disputed questions of fact, which cannot be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction and require appreciation of evidence during the course of trial. 10. In view of the above, and in light of the settled principles of law, once the charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has already been taken by the competent Court, this Court is not inclined to interfere at the threshold, as the material placed on record prima facie discloses the commission of offences. The existence of a counter case and the defence sought to be raised by the petitioners can be duly examined by the trial Court at the appropriate stage. Accordingly, no case for quashment of the FIR or consequential proceedings is made out, and the present petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet