1 2026:CGHC:1607-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 66 of 2026 1 - Santosh Singh S/o Late Damodar Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o Near Shankar Talkies, Ward No. 10, Tehsil- Sohagpur, District- Shahdol (M.P.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Marwahi, District- Gaurela-Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.) 2 - Shankar Kanwar S/o Umend Singh Aged About 46 Years R/o In Front Of Madhav Rao Govt. College Gaurela, Tehsil- Gaurela, District- Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Manglani, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Govt. 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. Heard Mr. Mohit Manglani, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the Respondent/State. 2. Present is a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioner under ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.01.14 10:43:16 +0530 2 Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, for quashing of the FIR of Crime No. 105/2025, dated 30.06.2025, registered at Police Station Marwahi, District Gaurela-Pendra- Marwahi, for the offences under Sections 296, 351(2) of BNS, 2023. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused in the offence of Crime No. 105/2025 lodged by the complainant Shankar Kanwar, with the allegation that on 29.06.2025 at about 2:00 pm, the complainant was abused and threatened in his mobile phone by some unknown accused persons who were disclosing their names as Deepmala Singh, Santosh Singh and Shilpa Singh. At the time of the alleged incident, one Lal Bahadur was also present, who heard the abuse and threats to the complainant, and then the complainant lodged the FIR. The police have registered the FIR against the holder of the alleged mobile numbers and started an investigation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the offence of Section 296 BNS, 2023 is not attracted as the alleged incident occurred in a private phone call. The private telephonic conversation does not satisfy the ingredients of obscene words as they are not done in place within public view. It is only to give the colour of a cognizable offence, the police authorities have deliberately added the offence of Section 296 of BNS, 2023. He would also submit that Section 351 of BNS is a non-cognizable offence and the FIR cannot be registered without prior permission from the Magistrate. The registration of the FIR and investigation is an abuse of the process of law, and the same is liable to be quashed. He would rely upon the order passed by the Kerala High Court dated 18.03.2025, in the case of P. T. Jahangeer vs. State of Kerala and Others. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the offence of Section 296 of BNS, 2023 is a cognizable offence; therefore, the FIR has been registered by the Police. There is an allegation that the complainant was abused and threatened by the accused through his mobile phone, and he also disclosed the mobile number from which he was being threatened, which certainly 3 requires investigation. The Police is obtaining the tower location, CDR, CAF, from the concerned service provider company of the alleged mobile number, and it is found that the alleged mobile phone and mobile number were held by the petitioner, and the investigation into the offence is going on. He would further submit that the earlier the petitioner had challenged the FIR in CRMP NO. 3803/2025, which has been withdrawn by him on 17.12.2025 without reserving any liberty; therefore, the present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. From perusal of the FIR, it transpires that there is an allegation in the FIR that the complainant was being abused and threatened by the accused through his mobile phone on 29.06.2025, at about 2:00 pm. He also disclosed the mobile number from which the complainant was being abused and threatened. During the investigation, the CDR and CAF of the alleged mobile number are obtained, and it is found that the said mobile number belongs to the petitioner, and further investigation is still going on. At this stage, it cannot be said that there is no involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. Further, the petitioner has already withdrawn his petition bearing CRMP No. 3803/2025, vide order dated 17.12.2025 and therefore, this Court does not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the registration of the FIR and to quash the same. 8. In the matter of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in AIR Online 2021 SC 192, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 23 held as under :- “23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 4 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under: (i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; (ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; (iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; (iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). (v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; (vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; (vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; (viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; (ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; (x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;” 9. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court 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 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 merits. 10. Considering the allegation made in the FIR and the material collected during the investigation, the nature of the offence and the manner in which the alleged 5 offence is said to have been committed by the accused. It necessarily requires investigation, and for registration of the FIR, there is sufficient material with the complainant, and the FIR cannot be quashed at its inception. The facts and considerations in the case of P. T. Jahangeer (Supra) are distinguishable from the facts of the present case, and no benefit could be extended to the petitioner from the said case. 11. Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the petition to quash the FIR. The present petition lacks merit, liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok