1 2026:CGHC:1587-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 59 of 2026 Preeti Sahare W/o Ricky Kumar Sahare Aged About 32 Years R/o Q. No. 69, Lig, Atal Vihar Colony, Pendri, Ward No. 20, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 2 - Superintendent of Police Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 3 - Station House Officer Police Station Lalbag, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 4 - Khileshwari Khare W/o Doman Lal Khare Aged About 28 Years R/o Q. No. 67, LIG, Atal Vihar Colony, Pendri, Ward No. 20, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12.01.2026 1. Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the defects pointed out by the Registry have been ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.01.12 17:08:23 +0530 2 duly cured. Accordingly, the objections raised by the Registry stand overruled. 2. Heard Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents. 3. The petitioner has filed the instant petition with the following relief :- “It is, therefore, prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the First Information Report bearing Crime No.502/2025 dated 11-11-2025 (Annexure P-1) registered before the Police Station Lalbag, District Rajnandgaon (C.G) for the offence punishable under section 296 of the BNS against the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 4. Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and respondent No.4 are neighbours residing in the same building, namely LIG, Atal Vihar Colony, Pendri, Ward No.20, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), where the husband of the petitioner is serving as a Grade-III employee at the Government Medical College, and the petitioner resides with her husband and minor child. It is submitted that on 27.10.2025, when the petitioner was at home with her two and a half year old child, respondent No.4, along with her husband Doman Lal Khare and her mother-in-law, deliberately threw garbage at the entrance of the petitioner’s house and, upon objection, abused and 3 threatened the petitioner and her family members, causing grave fear and mental distress to the petitioner and her minor child. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner immediately approached Police Station Lalbag and lodged a written complaint on the same day, pursuant to which the police recorded her statement and assured appropriate action. 5. Mr. Rathore further submits that, despite the petitioner being the aggrieved person, respondent No.4 lodged a retaliatory and false complaint on 11.11.2025 alleging abuse by the petitioner in respect of the same incident dated 27.10.2025, whereupon the police, in a most arbitrary and mechanical manner, registered Crime No.502/2025 against the petitioner for an offence under Section 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, without conducting any preliminary inquiry or considering the petitioner’s earlier complaint. It is further submitted that the petitioner came to know about the said FIR only on 14.11.2025 and thereafter submitted a reminder complaint before respondent No.2, requesting fair consideration of her complaint dated 27.10.2025, though no action was taken thereon. He further submits that on 26.11.2025, police personnel forcibly entered the petitioner’s house in the absence of her husband, where only the petitioner and her minor child were present, and attempted to arrest her without issuing any notice or disclosing any reason, thereby acting in gross violation of law. It is submitted that the entire action of the police is tainted with mala fides and displays clear bias, as no steps were 4 taken on the petitioner’s complaint, whereas immediate action was taken on the complaint of respondent No.4 due to her influence over the local police. 6. Mr. Rathore contends that the false implication of the petitioner is a result of personal vengeance, as the petitioner had earlier made complaints before the Dean, Government Medical College, against the illegal occupation of government quarters by the husband of respondent No.4 and one Bhushan Sonkar, who is also cited as a witness in the impugned crime. Owing to the said complaints, the said persons nursed a grudge against the petitioner and her husband and misused the criminal machinery by setting respondent No.4 as a tool to lodge a false and motivated FIR. It is therefore submitted that the registration of Crime No.502/2025 is a clear abuse of the process of law, lodged with an oblique motive, and does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence, and hence is liable to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned State counsel appearing for respondent No.1, opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the First Information Report has been registered strictly in accordance with law on the basis of a written complaint lodged by respondent No.4, which discloses commission of a cognizable offence under Section 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It is submitted that at the stage of registration of FIR and investigation, 5 this Court ought not to appreciate the disputed questions of fact or conduct a roving enquiry into the merits of the allegations. 8. Mr. Jaiswal further submits that the allegations made in the FIR require thorough investigation and the truthfulness or otherwise of the accusations can only be determined after collection of evidence. It is contended that merely because the petitioner had earlier made a complaint against respondent No.4, the same cannot be a ground to presume mala fides on the part of the investigating agency or to quash the FIR at the threshold. It is further submitted that the investigation is at a nascent stage and interference by this Court would adversely affect the statutory powers of the police. Therefore, the petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and have carefully perused the documents annexed with the present petition. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon careful consideration of the material placed on record, this Court finds that the dispute between the parties primarily arises out of a neighbourhood discord and is founded upon rival versions of the same incident. From a perusal of the record, it is manifest that the case involves allegations and counter-allegations, wherein both sides have accused each other of abusive conduct and misuse of the process of law. The petitioner relies upon her earlier complaint 6 dated 27.10.2025, whereas the FIR in question has been registered on the basis of the written complaint submitted by respondent No.4, disclosing commission of an offence under Section 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 11. At this stage, this Court is of the considered view that the issues raised by the petitioner are purely disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. Determination of whether the allegations are false, motivated, or actuated by personal vengeance would necessarily require appreciation of evidence, examination of witnesses and scrutiny of surrounding circumstances, which is the exclusive domain of the investigating agency and the trial Court. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings, is not expected to conduct a mini-trial or enter into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations levelled in the FIR. 12. It is also well settled that the existence of a prior complaint or a counter version by the accused, by itself, does not furnish a valid ground to quash a criminal proceeding, particularly when the FIR on its face discloses the ingredients of the alleged offence. The plea of mala fides, bias of the police machinery, or abuse of process, as urged on behalf of the petitioner, cannot be conclusively determined without a full-fledged investigation. The same would remain matters of defence, which the petitioner is always at liberty to raise before the appropriate forum. 7 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no exceptional circumstance warranting interference at this preliminary stage. The FIR in question cannot be said to be patently illegal or wholly without jurisdiction so as to attract the extraordinary power of quashment. 14. Consequently, the petition is devoid of merit and stands dismissed, leaving it open for the petitioner to avail all remedies available under law in accordance with due process. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu