1 2026:CGHC:5643-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 330 of 2026 Jagdish Shrivas S/o Late Shri Makhan Lal Shrivas Aged About 45 Years R/o Budghina Para Andikachar P.S. Hardibazar District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Officer In Charge Police of Police Station Hardibazar District Korba (C.G.) 2. Shyam Prasad Bharadwaj S/o Shri Brijram Bharadwaj Aged About 28 Years R/o Andikachar P.S. Hardibazar District Korba (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Aashutosh Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 02.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Aashutosh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.02.02 17:31:43 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “1. That, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the present petition CRMP and may quash the impugned charge-sheet along with FIR dated 02.09.2025 filed against the petitioner in police station Hardibazar Korba (C.G.) in connection with Crime No160 of 2025 under Section 115(2), 296, 351(3), 118(2), 3(5), 191(2) of the BNS Act, 2023 as Criminal Case No. 1589 of 2025 pending before JMFC Pali District Korba (C.G.) and the cognizance taken on dated 17.10.2025 by learned JMFC, Pali, Districr Korba (C.G.). 2. That the Hon’ble Court may quash the charge-sheet & FIR and discharge the present applicant. 3. That the Hon’ble Court may call for the entire records for its kind perusal. 4.That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass any other order as it may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case without any verification of the nature of the incident or his specific role. It is contended that on 01.09.2025, the petitioner was merely present in the Ganesh Visarjan procession along with several persons and was engaged only in 3 preparatory activities. According to the petitioner, the complainant, while riding his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against Kamlesh Shrivas, causing him minor injuries, which led to a sudden quarrel between the parties. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the genesis of the dispute lies solely in the negligent act of the complainant and that the allegations of assault are an afterthought. It is argued that despite the absence of any overt act or specific allegation against the petitioner, offences under Sections 115(2), 296, 351(3), 118(2), 3(5) and 191(2) of the BNS were registered against him with mala fide intent. It is also contended that the complainant misused his caste status and exerted pressure on the police authorities, resulting in false implication of the petitioner. Emphasis is placed on the fact that this Court had granted bail to the petitioner vide order dated 13.11.2025 in MCRC No. 9132 of 2025, which, according to the petitioner, reflects the lack of prima facie material against him. 5. It is further contended that a plain reading of the FIR does not disclose any direct allegation of assault or grievous injury attributable to the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that even if the prosecution case is accepted at face value, the dispute arose out of a sudden altercation following a road accident and does not constitute the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. It is urged that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and that the dispute has been given a criminal colour 4 with an oblique motive. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the petition and submits that the FIR, charge-sheet and medical evidence clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences. It is argued that the investigation has revealed specific roles of the accused persons, including the use of a wooden stick causing grievous head injury to the complainant’s father. The learned State counsel submits that the matter involves serious allegations supported by medical and documentary evidence and that the grant of bail cannot be construed as a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings. It is further submitted that the truthfulness of the allegations and the defence raised by the petitioner are matters to be adjudicated during trial. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order and the material placed on record. 8. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it would be apposite to refer to the settled legal position governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing of criminal proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has illustratively enumerated the categories of cases wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of the CrPC (now Section 528 of the BNSS) may be exercised to quash criminal proceedings. The said principles, though not exhaustive, include cases where the allegations made in the FIR or 5 complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, do not constitute any offence; where the allegations are absurd or inherently improbable; where there is an express legal bar to institution or continuance of the proceedings; or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and have been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. 9. It is equally well settled that the power to quash criminal proceedings is to be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in the rarest of rare cases, and the Court, at this stage, is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of evidence or embark upon a roving inquiry into disputed questions of fact. The truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations, the sufficiency of evidence, and the defence raised by the accused are matters to be tested during trial. 10. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclose specific and clear allegations against the accused persons. The prosecution case is not based on vague or omnibus allegations. The FIR narrates the sequence of events, names the accused persons, attributes overt acts, and alleges the use of a wooden stick resulting in grievous head injury to Brijram Bhardwaj. The medical evidence, including the CT scan report, prima facie corroborates the allegation of grievous injury. On the basis of the material collected, additional penal provisions were invoked and a charge-sheet has been filed after completion of investigation. 6 11. The contention of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated and that no specific role is attributed to him involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. The defence set up by the petitioner, including the alleged rash and negligent driving by the complainant and the claim that the petitioner was merely present at the spot, requires appreciation of evidence and cross-examination of witnesses, which is impermissible at this stage. 12. The submission that the dispute is purely civil or personal in nature is also devoid of merit. The allegations, if taken at face value, disclose offences relating to unlawful restraint, assault, criminal intimidation and causing grievous hurt with a weapon, which are clearly criminal in nature. Therefore, the case does not fall within any of the categories enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra) so as to warrant interference by this Court. 13. The grant of bail to the petitioner cannot be construed as a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings. Bail is granted on a prima facie assessment and on considerations distinct from those governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. The order granting bail does not wipe out the allegations nor does it render the prosecution case untenable. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the FIR, charge-sheet and cognizance order disclose prima facie commission of cognizable offences and the criminal proceedings cannot be said to be an abuse of the process of law. The present case 7 does not fall within the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra) for exercise of inherent powers. 15. Consequently, no case is made out for interference under Section 528 of the BNSS. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan