1 2026:CGHC:4719 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 639 of 2024 Firoz Khan S/o Shri Sikandar Khan Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 07, Lalpur, Bagbahra, Police Station Bagbahra, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home A4airs, New Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Superintendent Of Police District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Station House O8cer Police Station - Bagbahra, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sangita Sinha W/o Ashok Sinha Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Jhalap Chowk, Bagbahra, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocate. For Respondent Nos.1 to 4/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Manish Thakur, Advocate. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Adil Minhaj, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shubham Bajpai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4/State and Mr. Manish Thakur, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 5. 2. The present petition has been =led by the petitioner with the following prayer:- 1.“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that, Hon’ble Court, in the circumstances, be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to Criminal Case No. 161/2023 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Bagbahra, Distt. Mahasamund. 2. It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that, Hon’ble Court, in the circumstances, be pleased to set-aside / quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 161/2023 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Bagbahra, Distt. Mahasamund. 3. It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that, Hon’ble Court, in the circumstances, be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to conduct enquiry and take strict and severe action against the erring police o-cers, 3 responsible for the arbitrary and illegal action against the petitioner. 4. It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that, Hon’ble Court, in the circumstances, be pleased to any other relief(s), direction(s), which Hon'ble the Court deems 3t, and proper, in the circumstances of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is an Advocate practicing at Bagbahra, District Mahasamund (C.G.), and for a long time has been making complaints against illegal and unauthorized private hospitals and clinics being operated in Bagbahra. One Ashok Sinha, an unquali=ed person posing as a doctor, was operating Yash Clinic at Bagbahra and had previously been directed to immediately close the said clinic, vide order dated 14.03.2016 (Annexure P-2). Subsequently, during a surprise inspection, he was again found performing medical work, and therefore, vide order dated 06.09.2016, the CMHO, Mahasamund restrained him from working at Yash Clinic (Annexure P-3). Despite repeated directions of the CMHO, unauthorized hospitals and doctors continued to operate unabated, compelling the petitioner to make several complaints to the concerned authorities (Annexure P- 4). The petitioner also =led an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of o4ences against the concerned authorities and persons illegally operating private hospitals, along with order dated 23.12.2017 (Annexure P-5). Inspections conducted by the Tahsildar, Bagbahra in September 2017 revealed that Ashok Sinha 4 was treating patients at Yash Hospital, Bagbahra (Inspection Report dated 19.09.2017, Annexure P-6). 4. On the petitioner’s complaint, the Collector directed the CMHO to inspect Yash Hospital, and in the inspection dated 06.02.2018, Ashok Sinha was again found treating patients, leading to recommendation to the SDO (Revenue) to seal the hospital (Annexure P-7). Even after the hospital was sealed, Ashok Sinha continued medical practice at the same premises, as revealed in inspection conducted on 08.06.2018 pursuant to order dated 04.06.2018, with inquiry report dated 15.06.2018 (Annexure P-8). On 24.03.2019, an FIR (Crime No. 79/2019) was lodged by a girl alleging sexual harassment and sexual advances by Ashok Sinha at Chandi Hospital, Bagbahra (Annexure P-9). Regarding the said incident also, the petitioner made a complaint to the SDO (Revenue), and inspection at Shri Chandi Hospital with employee statements con=rmed that Ashok Sinha regularly treated patients there (Complaint dated 28.03.2019, Panchnama and statements Annexure P-10). The enquiry report dated 10.04.2019 submitted by the Tahsildar, Bagbahra clearly stated that the hospital was being illegally operated by Ashok Sinha in violation of licensing conditions (Annexure P-11), and further recorded that one Sangeeta Sinha, claiming to be Legal Advisor, attempted to inGuence the enquiry team by threatening to call a Minister and the Superintendent of Police. On the same day, Sangeeta Sinha lodged a complaint against the petitioner alleging mental harassment and demand of money and surprisingly, on instructions of the SDO (Police), 5 Bagbahra, FIR No. 98/2019 under Sections 384 and 385 IPC was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested the same day while returning from the District Court, Mahasamund, handcu4ed, paraded on the road for medical examination and his photographs in handcu4s were taken and published in local newspapers (Annexure P-12). The petitioner was granted bail on the next day by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund (Order dated 11.04.2019, Annexure P-13). 5. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was =led against the petitioner (Annexure P-14), and Criminal Case No. 161/2023 is pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Bagbahra, District Mahasamund, with order sheets annexed as Annexure P-1. The petitioner had earlier =led W.P. (Cr.) No. 348/2019, which was disposed of on 12.05.2023 with liberty to =le a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-15). The petitioner is aggrieved by the arbitrary and unlawful action of the police authorities, allegedly in connivance with Ashok Sinha, undertaken to shield him from criminal liability, hence the present petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the police authorities in registering the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) on the basis of a written report which does not disclose the commission of any cognizable o4ence is wholly arbitrary, mala =de, and a desperate attempt to shield accused Ashok Sinha from criminal liability. A bare perusal of the written complaint would reveal that no allegation whatsoever of extortion or delivery of 6 property or valuable security was made against the petitioner, nevertheless, the police registered the FIR under Sections 384 and 385 IPC. It is further submitted that the complaint was directly made to the SDO (Police), Bagbahra, who conducted his own enquiry and, on his own assessment, directed the SHO, P.S. Bagbahra to register the FIR, observing that the conduct of the petitioner amounted to o4ences under Sections 384 and 385 IPC, which action is legally unsustainable. It is an admitted position that the essential ingredients of the alleged o4ences, particularly delivery of property or valuable security, are completely absent in the present case. The petitioner has consistently been making complaints against illegal private hospitals and clinics operating in and around Bagbahra, and inspections conducted by the competent authorities on the basis of his complaints have repeatedly found the allegations to be true. Despite actions taken by the Health Authorities and the Administration, including sealing of Yash Hospital operated by Ashok Sinha, he continued unabated to run his unlawful and unauthorized medical practice. The local administration, instead of taking e4ective action, has merely gone through the motions and appears to be hand-in-gloves with Ashok Sinha. 7. It is further submitted that as soon as a complaint of sexual harassment was lodged against Ashok Sinha, the entire police machinery swung into action to save him at any cost, the complainant girl was allegedly detained, threatened, and coerced at the police station on the instructions of senior o8cers to change her statement. The conduct of the police shows a clear bias and undue 7 inGuence in favour of Ashok Sinha, extending even to pressurizing and harassing the complainant. The vindictive attitude of the police is evident from the fact that on the very day Sangeeta Sinha made a complaint, an FIR was promptly registered against the petitioner on the instructions of higher o8cers and he was arrested while returning from Court. Such conduct is in blatant violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and amounts to infringement of the petitioner’s fundamental rights. As such, it is submitted that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner are an abuse of the process of law and deserve to be set aside/quashed. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. The counter-a8davit, =led on behalf of Respondent No. 5, essentially asserts that the petitioner, an Advocate by profession— has been pursuing a sustained and malicious campaign against Ashok Sinha out of personal animosity and with an alleged intention to extort money. It is stated that Ashok Sinha is not a medical practitioner but only a Director associated with Yash Clinic, where medical treatment was rendered by quali=ed doctors, and that the petitioner has repeatedly misrepresented him as an unquali=ed person posing as a doctor. According to him, the petitioner used inGuence with local administrative and health authorities (including CMHO, Tehsildar, Collector, etc.) to initiate inspections, pass adverse orders and cause sealing actions against the clinic. 8 Allegations of illegal medical practice and even the 2019 sexual harassment FIR are described as fabricated, motivated, and part of a larger conspiracy to harass and defame Ashok Sinha. Conversely, it is highlighted that Sangeeta Sinha/respondent No.5 had lodged an FIR (Crime No. 98/2019) against the petitioner under Sections 384 and 385 IPC (extortion), in which the petitioner was arrested, a charge-sheet under Section 173 CrPC was =led, and the matter is pending trial. 10. The a8davit further points out that earlier proceedings initiated by the petitioner, including an application under Section 156(3) CrPC, complaint cases and a criminal writ petition, were dismissed or set aside by competent Courts. The present petition under Section 482 CrPC is thus portrayed as a continuation of the petitioner’s vindictive litigation strategy, =led to exert pressure and gain advantage in ongoing proceedings, with respondent No. 5 being unnecessarily and falsely implicated despite having no direct connection with the relief sought. 11. The petitioner, by way of the rejoinder, contends that the counter- a8davit of respondent No. 5 is false, vague and purely defensive in nature, intended only to shield her husband Ashok Sinha from the consequences of repeated administrative and legal actions taken against him for illegally running a medical establishment and practicing without quali=cation, as reGected in various o8cial inspection reports and closure orders issued by competent authorities under the Nursing Home Act and related laws. It is 9 further contended that the allegations of demand of money forming the basis of o4ences under Sections 384 and 385 IPC are bald and unsupported by any speci=c date, amount or incident, and the charge-sheet itself fails to disclose the essential ingredients of extortion. The petitioner further clari=es that his earlier proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. were revived by the revisional Court, demonstrating that his complaints were not frivolous, and that the reference to other cases and the stand taken regarding the sexual harassment FIR are merely attempts to malign him and divert attention from the illegal activities of Ashok Sinha. Hence, the criminal proceedings are stated to be malicious, retaliatory and an abuse of the process of law, liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 13. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down the principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first information report and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the report, their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the 10 CrPC should be exercised, which are as under: - “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation 11 is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 14. The Supreme Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Sharma and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2016) 9 SCC 1 held as under:- 12 “35. While discussing the scope and ambit of Section 482 of the Code, a similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Kal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 wherein it was held as under:- “29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and 13 the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC: 30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling 14 and impeccable quality? 30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? 30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the a8rmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 15 15. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the criminal proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner on the basis of FIR No. 98/2019 registered at Police Station Bagbahra for o4ences under Sections 384 and 385 IPC, allegedly on the complaint of respondent No. 5, wherein vague and omnibus allegations of demand of money have been made without disclosing any speci=c date, time, place, amount or instance of delivery of property or valuable security. It further transpires that prior to registration of the said FIR, the petitioner, who is an Advocate by profession, had been consistently making complaints before the competent authorities regarding illegal operation of medical establishments and unauthorized medical practice by Ashok Sinha, husband of respondent No. 5, and that several inspections conducted by administrative and health authorities had resulted in adverse reports and closure/sealing orders against the said establishment. The material placed on record prima facie indicates that the essential ingredients of the o4ences under Sections 384 and 385 IPC are not made out and the dispute appears to have arisen in the backdrop of earlier complaints made by the petitioner against the illegal activities allegedly carried out by the husband of respondent No. 5. 16. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations levelled against the petitioner, even if taken at their face value, do not satisfy the basic ingredients of the o4ence of extortion as de=ned under the 16 IPC, particularly in absence of any material showing delivery of property or valuable security pursuant to any alleged threat. The sequence of events and the documents placed on record further indicate that the petitioner had been actively pursuing complaints against alleged illegal medical practice and the impugned criminal proceedings appear to be a counterblast and actuated with mala =de intent. Continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law and would cause undue harassment to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court =nds it to be a =t case for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. 17. In view of the above, the FIR bearing Crime No. 98/2019 registered at Police Station Bagbahra, District Mahasamund for o4ences under Sections 384 and 385 of the IPC, the charge-sheet =led pursuant thereto and the entire criminal proceedings arising therefrom in Criminal Case No. 161/2023 pending before the learned JMFC, Bagbahra, District Mahasamund (C.G.), are hereby quashed. 18. The petition under Section 482 CrPC is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal