1 2026:CGHC:2668-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 165 of 2026 1 - Manoj Kumar Rathore S/o Shri Jaggu Rathore Aged About 39 Years R/o Raman Gali Panna Nagar, Ring Road, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., P.S. - Civil Line, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ashish Sahu S/o Late Sanjay Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Near Santoshi Mandir Chantidihi, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 16/01/2026 1. Heard Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the Respondent/State. ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.01.20 15:04:48 +0530 2 2. Present is a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the charge-sheet No. 126/2024, arising out of the FIR No. 162/2024 registered at Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur for the offence under Section 294, 506 of the IPC and also to quash the order taking cognizance dated 22.03.2024, n the aforesaid charge-sheet and also claiming the setting aside the order dated 12.11.2024 by which charges have been framed by the learned trial Court and prayed for the following reliefs: “A. That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside the Impugned Charge sheet filed by the respondent no. 1 bearing final report no. 126/2024 dated 15.03.2024 in bearing no. 162 of 2024 dated 09.02.2024 for offence punishable u/s 294, 506 of IPC. B. That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order taking Cognizance dated 22.03.2024 by the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate first Class Bilaspur whereby, the bearing final report no. 126/2024 dated 15.03.2024 in bearing no 0162 of 2024 dated 09.02.2024 for offence punishable u/s 294, 506 of IPC has been taken cognizance. C. That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned-order of framing charge dated 12.11.2024 in Criminal case no. 1619/2024, whereby, Court of Judicial Magistrate first Class Bilaspur has refused to consider the objections raised by the petitioner that no charge is made out and have charged the petitioners with offence punishable u/249, 506 of IPC. D. That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set 3 aside all the consequential proceedings in Criminal case no. 1619/2024 pending before Court of Judicial Magistrate First class Bilaspur. E. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the Petitioner, in the interest of justice. An affidavit in support of is filed herewith.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused in the criminal case No. 1619/2024, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, which arises out of the aforesaid crime No. 162/2024 registered at Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur for the offence under Section 294, 506 of IPC. The complainant/respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 09.02.2024 against the present petitioner and his friend that on 09.02.2024 at about 05:45 pm, when he came to his house, the petitioner and his friend were abusing his tenant and raising quarrel with him. When he intervened, they also abused him and threatened him with dire consequences. The incident was witnessed by Akshay Dubey, Kunal and other persons of the vicinity. The FIR was registered and after investigation charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner. The learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the offence on 22.03.2024 and charges have been framed by the learned trial Court on 12.11.2024. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that without considering the objection raised by the petitioner, the cognizance of the offence was taken and charges have been framed. There is no ingredients of the alleged offences against the petitioner in 4 the charge-sheet. The complaint does not disclose any prima facie offence for taking cognizance and framing charges against him. The complainant being the influential and political background, with the collusion of the police authorities get the FIR registered against him, and charge-sheet has been filed. The FIR and charge sheet against the petitioner is just a counterblast and to harass him for compromise in the dispute between them. He would also submit that on the complaint lodged by the present petitioner against the complainant respondent No.2 he was being prosecuted and a charge-sheet has been filed against him also. He would refer to the complaints made by him against the complainant annexure P/8 and also the complaint made by the persons of the vicinity annexure P/7 and prayed for the aforesaid reliefs claimed by him in the petition. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 opposes the submissions and would submit that Section 294 is the cognizable offence for which, on the complaint made by the complainant, FIR has been registered and after investigation charge- sheet has been filed. Considering the allegation of abuse and threat to the complainant, the learned trial Court has taken cognizance and charges have been framed. Although from the complaint made by the petitioner, it appears that he made certain complaints against the complainant of the present case but the same is subsequent to lodging of the report against the petitioner, therefore, there are prima facie material in the charge-sheet to proceed with the trial of the case and the charge-sheet as well as charges cannot be quashed at this stage. 5 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. From perusal of the FIR as well as charge-sheet, it transpires that there is an allegation, as the the petitioner that on 09.02.2024 at about 05:45 pm, when he came near his house, the petitioner was abusing his tenant and when the complainant tried to intervene, he too have been abused and threatened and when the statement of eye-witnesses Akshay Dubey and Kunal Sharma. Whether or not the petitioner committed an offence is to be decided after recording evidence of the parties, however, in the charge-sheet there is sufficient material to proceed with the trial. 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 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 6 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 submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charges for the offences in for the recording of the prosecution 7 evidence. It was further submitted that the respondent question were framed against the petitioner on 12.11.2024 and thereafter, the case was fixed No.2 complainant it is not appearing for the recording of his evidence. It is also stated that there are counter versions of the incident and that charge sheets have been submitted against both sides, charges have been framed, and the trial is pending. The petitioner has approached the Court seeking quashment of the present proceedings; however, there are counter versions of the incident for which the complainant party is also facing trial. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and to quash the charge-sheet or charges framed against him. 11. Accordingly, the present petition lacks merit, liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok