1 2026:CGHC:6942-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 411 of 2026 1 - Gulab Singh Sengar S/o Ganpat Singh Aged About 46 Years Caste- Kshatriya, R/o Parasi, Tahsil- Marwahi, District- Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi, C.G. 2 - Sanju @ Shailendra Kewat S/o Amarnath Kewat Aged About 40 Years Caste- Kewat, R/o Parasi, Tahsil- Marwahi, District- Gourela-Pendra- Marwahi, C.G. 3 - Karan @ Pappu Kushwaha S/o Lakhan Aged About 40 Years Caste- Kushwaha, R/o Parasi, Tahsil- Marwahi, District- Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi, C.G. 4 - Krishna Kumar S/o Rewalal Aged About 29 Years Caste- Kewat, R/o Parasi, Tahsil- Marwahi, District- Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi, C.G. 5 - Raju @ Rajkumar Sengar S/o Kalyan Singh Aged About 51 Years Caste- Kshatriya, R/o Parasi, Tahsil- Marwahi, District- Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi, C.G. 6 - Bihanlal S/o Bodhan Aged About 73 Years Caste- Kewat, R/o Parasi, Tahsil- Marwahi, District- Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi, C.G. 7 - Ghanshyam Prajapati S/o Gorelal Prajapati Aged About 26 Years Caste- Kumhar, R/o Parasi, Tahsil- Marwahi, District- Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi, C.G. 8 - Chhotu Rajak @ Uday Shankar S/o Munna Rajak Aged About 28 Years Caste- Dhobi, R/o Parasi, Tahsil- Marwahi, District- Gourela-Pendra- Marwahi, C.G. 9 - Anil Kewat S/o Nagendra Aged About 26 Years R/o Parasi, Tahsil- Marwahi, District- Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi, C.G. 10 - Ankush S/o Durga Prasad Aged About 28 Years Caste- Kewat, R/o Parasi, Tahsil- Marwahi, District- Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi, C.G. 11 - Vinod S/o Besahan Aged About 28 Years Caste- Yadav, R/o Parasi, Tahsil- Marwahi, District- Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi, C.G. VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.02.11 20:05:11 +0530 2 ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Marwahi, District- Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi, C.G. 2 - Onkar Singh Maravi S/o Bharat Singh Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Parasi, Police Station, Marwahi, District- Gourela-Pendra- Marwahi, C.G.(Complainant) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 09/02/2026 1. This is a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioners seeking quashment of the First Information Report dated 10.07.2025 registered as Crime No.110/2025 at Police Station Marwahi, District Gourela-Pendra- Marwahi (Chhattisgarh), for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 127(2), 296, 351(2) and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(2)(5), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(e), 3(1)(d) and 3(1)(c) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on the ground that the impugned FIR is manifestly mala fide, suffers from unexplained delay, does not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, and has been lodged 3 with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance upon the petitioners owing to disputes arising out of allegations of misappropriation of Panchayat funds against respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner has filed the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition with the following reliefs:- “1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. filed by the petitioners. II. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR dated 10.07.2025 bearing Crime No. 110/2025 registered at Police Station, Marwahi, District-Gourela-Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.) for the offence U/s 191(2), 127(2), 296, 351(2), 115(2) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(5), (r), (s), 3(1)(e), 3(1)(d), 3(1)(c) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the petitioners. III. Grant any other relief, which may be deemed fit in given facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of petitioners.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the impugned FIR is a clear abuse of the process of law and has been lodged with a 4 mala fide intention only to harass the petitioners. It is contended that the petitioners had raised serious objections and complaints against respondent No.2 regarding misappropriation and embezzlement of Panchayat funds, pursuant to which departmental enquiries were initiated and adverse findings were recorded against respondent No.2. The lodging of the present FIR is nothing but a retaliatory measure adopted by respondent No.2 to settle personal scores and to divert attention from the allegations of financial irregularities levelled against him. 4. Learned counsel would further submit that the alleged incident is stated to have taken place on 02.07.2025, whereas the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay of eight days on 10.07.2025, which strikes at the very root of the prosecution case. No plausible explanation has been offered for such abnormal delay, particularly when the complainant is a public servant and claims that the incident occurred in the presence of an enquiry team. The unexplained delay assumes significance and renders the allegations doubtful, suggesting afterthought and deliberation, thereby vitiating the credibility of the FIR. 5. Learned counsel would also submit that even if the allegations contained in the FIR are taken at their face value, the essential ingredients of the offences alleged under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita as well as under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not made out. There is no specific, intentional or public caste-based insult alleged, nor any material to 5 show that the complainant was obstructed in discharge of official duties. On the contrary, contemporaneous material including the video recording of the incident demonstrates that the petitioners merely questioned the complainant regarding Panchayat funds in a lawful manner. Hence, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law, warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the present petition seeking quashment of FIR is misconceived and devoid of merit. It is contended that the allegations levelled in the FIR disclose commission of cognizable offences and require adjudication after appreciation of evidence, which cannot be undertaken in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The FIR specifically alleges that the petitioners interfered with the official enquiry proceedings being conducted at Gram Panchayat Parasi, restrained the complainant/respondent No.2 during discharge of his official duties, entered into a scuffle with him and abused him using dirty and filthy language, thereby attracting the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita as well as the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 7. Learned State counsel would further submit that the investigation in the matter has been completed and the charge-sheet is likely to be filed shortly. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses have been recorded and sufficient material has been collected in support of the prosecution case. At this stage, the veracity 6 of the allegations, the defence of the petitioners and the disputed questions of fact cannot be examined in a petition for quashment, as the same falls within the exclusive domain of the trial Court. The mere existence of a civil or administrative dispute relating to Panchayat funds does not ipso facto render the criminal proceedings mala fide. 8. Learned State counsel would also submit that the petitioners have already been granted the protection of anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 12.01.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2342 of 2025 (Gulab Singh Sengar and others v. State of Chhattisgarh), which sufficiently safeguards their liberty. Therefore, no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances exist warranting quashment of the FIR at this stage. The State would accordingly pray for dismissal of the present petition. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record with due circumspection. 10. The scope of interference under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is limited and well-settled. At this stage, this Court is required to examine only whether the allegations made in the FIR, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of cognizable offences. A careful reading of the FIR reveals specific allegations that the petitioners interfered with an official enquiry being conducted at the Gram Panchayat, restrained the complainant while discharging public duty, indulged in scuffle and abused him using filthy language, including caste-based utterances. These allegations prima facie attract 7 the offences under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita as well as the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 11. The contention of the petitioners that the FIR deserves to be quashed on account of delay of eight days in lodging the report cannot be accepted at this stage. Delay in lodging the FIR, by itself, is not a ground to quash criminal proceedings, particularly when the allegations relate to interference in official work and commission of offences under a special statute. Whether the delay stands satisfactorily explained or not is a matter of appreciation of evidence, which falls within the domain of the trial Court and cannot be adjudicated in a petition seeking quashment of FIR. 12. It is also relevant to note that before granting anticipatory bail in cases involving offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Court is required to record a satisfaction that no prima facie case is made out for applicability of the provisions of the said Act, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chouhan v. Union of India and others, (2020) 4 SCC 727. In the present case, instead of recording such a finding, the anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioners primarily on the ground of delay of eight days in lodging the FIR. Grant of anticipatory bail on such ground does not ipso facto justify quashment of the FIR, particularly when the allegations disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged and the investigation has culminated in collection of material against the petitioners. 8 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the FIR cannot be said to be frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the process of law warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction. The defence raised by the petitioners, including allegations of mala fide and false implication, involves disputed questions of fact which require adjudication on evidence and cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Consequently, no case for interference is made out. 14. Accordingly, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved