2026:CGHC:5177-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 305 of 2026 Ashish Das S/o Mukesh Das Aged About 24 Years R/o Komal Vihar, Ghuru Ameri, P.S. Sakri, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Superintendent Of Police Korba, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Station House Officer P.S. Urga, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Shailendra Sharma, PL --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30.01.2026 Heard Shri Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Shailendra Sharma, appearing for the respondent/State. 1. Present petition has been filed with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this application and stay the Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.02.03 18:19:36 +0530 Crmp 305 of 2026 2 effect and operation of the further proceeding of registered FIR No.544 of 2025 against the petitioner till the final disposal of this petition, in the interest of justice.” 2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of the FIR of Crime No.544 of 2025, registered at Police Station- Urga, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the BNS 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is a student of LLB Semester-9, studying at DP Vipra College, Bilaspur. He has been falsely implicated in the offence along with other accused persons with allegation that he gave allurement that by using black magic, would make the amount ten times, and thereby, called the deceased to the place of incident. During the process of black magic, they committed murder of the deceased by strangulation with the help of nylon rope. During investigation, petitioner was arrested on the basis of memorandum statement of other accused persons, whereas, there is no nexus of the petitioner with the alleged offence. There is no sufficient material to proceed with investigation against present petitioner, and the FIR against him is liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes and submitted that deceased-Nitish Kumar Ratre was being Crmp 305 of 2026 3 called by the accused persons on the pretext that they will make his amount ten times more. During the process of black magic, and during its process, they committed his murder by strangulation. During the investigation, name of present petitioner also appears that he too involved in the alleged offence, and after merg enquiry, FIR has been registered in which the petitioner is also named along with others. Investigation of the case is going on in which petitioner was arrested, and at this stage, the FIR reflects clear allegation against the petitioner, and there is sufficient material in the case diary, collected during the investigation, and it cannot be said that no offence is made out against him, and therefore, present petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. On perusal of the FIR No.0544 of 2025, registered on 12.12.2025, at PS-Urga, District-Korba, it transpires that from the statement of witnesses Adnan Memon, Santosh Kumar Sahu, Chandra, Manish, and Vishnu Prasad were recorded and from their statement, name of present petitioner also appears along with other accused persons that they have committed murder of the deceased. In the postmortem report, cause of death was also opined that it was asphyxia as consequent to ligature strangulation, and nature being homicidal. Crmp 305 of 2026 4 7. Considering the prima facie offence against the petitioner, and other accused persons, after conducting the merg enquiry FIR was registered including the present petitioner, including others. 8. Petitioner challeged the FIR , which is in its initial stage, and there is sufficient prima facie material appearing for registration of FIR against the presnt petitioner. 9. In the matter of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 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 conclusions are as under: Crmp 305 of 2026 5 (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; Crmp 305 of 2026 6 (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” 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, further considering that in the FIR itself, there is prima facie material against the petitioner for registration of offence, and investigation is going on, further, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and to quash the FIR No.544 of 2025 registered against him. 11. Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of merit, liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma