1 2026:CGHC:5174-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 306 of 2026 1 - Uttam Bharadwaj S/o Ishwari Prasad Bharadwaj Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Bhilauni, Tahsil And P.S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 2 - Ishwari Prasad Bharadwaj S/o Late Rameshwar Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Bhilauni, Tahsil And P.S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Pamgarh, District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 2 - Nareshwar Banjare S/o Late Rajkumar Banjare Aged About 36 Years Posted As Constable (Constable No. 591), P.S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) (Complainant) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Atul Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30/01/2026 ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.02.02 11:52:18 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Atul Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the Respondent/State. 2. The instant CRMP has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer : “1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash the impugned FIR No. 95/2020 dated 28.03.2020 registered at Police Station-Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) u/ss 188, 294, 332, 34, 353, 506 IPC lodged against the present petitioners, in the interest of justice. 2. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash the impugned chargesheet no. 356/2020 dt. 07.10.2020 filed before Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) u/ss. 188, 294, 332, 34, 353, 506 IPC against the present petitioners, in the interest of justice. 3. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash the subsequent criminal proceedings including impugned order of taking cognizance dt. 23.12.2021 by Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) u/ss. 188, 294, 332, 34, 353, 506 IPC. in Criminal Case No. 1465/2021, in the interest of justice. 4. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash the impugned charges framed u/ss. 294, 506, 353/34 & 332/34 of I.P.C. on 29.08.2024 against the petitioners and order dt. 29.08.2024 of framing of above charges 3 passed by Ld. JMFC, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 1465/2021, in the interest of justice. 5. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to give such other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR bearing Crime No. 95/2020 dated 28.03.2020 was lodged against the petitioners at Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) at the instance of respondent No.2, Nareshwar Banjare, a Constable, alleging that on 25.03.2020 the petitioners had kept their grocery shop open at about 11:10 a.m. in alleged violation of COVID-19 guidelines, pursuant to which a verbal altercation is stated to have taken place, whereafter, with a delay of three days, the impugned FIR came to be registered for offences under Sections 188, 294, 332, 353, 506 read with Section 34 IPC; during the pendency of an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners, the police submitted charge-sheet No. 356/2020 dated 07.10.2020, upon which the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, took cognizance vide order dated 23.12.2021 and registered Criminal Case No. 1465/2021, and thereafter framed charges against the petitioners under Sections 294, 506, 353/34 and 332/34 IPC vide order dated 29.08.2024. It is further borne out from the record that the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 24.06.2020 and that earlier challenges to the FIR, charge-sheet and proceedings were withdrawn with liberty to avail appropriate remedies, and the gravamen of the petitioners’ challenge is that the entire prosecution arises out of an alleged violation of prohibitory orders under Section 144 4 Cr.P.C., attracting Section 188 IPC, for which initiation of prosecution by way of FIR is barred under Section 195 Cr.P.C., and that the inclusion of other penal provisions is impermissible, as the complainant was not shown to be discharging any specific official duty at the relevant time so as to attract Sections 332 or 353 IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential criminal proceedings are ex facie illegal, malicious and constitute a gross abuse of the process of law, as the very genesis of the prosecution is the alleged violation of prohibitory orders issued under Section 144 Cr.P.C., punishable under Section 188 IPC, for which cognizance is expressly barred under Section 195 Cr.P.C. in the absence of a written complaint by the competent public servant; it is contended that initiation of prosecution by way of an FIR is wholly without jurisdiction and the subsequent addition of other penal sections is a colourable exercise intended to circumvent the statutory bar, which is impermissible in law, as what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly It is further submitted that all alleged offences arise out of the same transaction and once the principal offence is barred, continuation of proceedings for incidental offences is unsustainable; even otherwise, the essential ingredients of Sections 332 and 353 IPC are conspicuously absent, as the complainant- constable was admittedly not discharging any specific official duty at the relevant time and had merely given a suggestion regarding shop timings, without attempting to enforce any order or perform any lawful act; the unexplained delay of three days in lodging the FIR further 5 vitiates the prosecution, which is manifestly mala fide, false, frivolous and intended to harass the petitioners by giving criminal colour to a trivial altercation, and therefore, even if the allegations are taken at face value, no offence is made out and the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed in the interest of justice. 5. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the impugned FIR, charge-sheet and subsequent criminal proceedings are lawful and do not warrant interference at this stage, as the allegations disclose commission of cognizable offences beyond mere violation of prohibitory orders; it is contended that the FIR contains specific averments regarding use of abusive language, criminal intimidation and assault upon a public servant, thereby attracting Sections 294, 506, 332 and 353 IPC independently of Section 188 IPC, and the bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is not attracted where the prosecution is founded on distinct offences involving obstruction, criminal force and intimidation against a police official; it is further submitted that framing of charges by the learned Magistrate demonstrates application of judicial mind and the correctness or sufficiency of evidence cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS; the alleged delay in lodging the FIR has been sufficiently explained in the charge-sheet and is a matter of appreciation of evidence to be tested during trial; it is also urged that whether the complainant was acting in discharge of official duty and whether the accused intended to deter him from such duty are mixed questions of 6 fact and law which cannot be adjudicated in quashing proceedings; hence, the petition, which seeks a premature evaluation of disputed facts, deserves dismissal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. The Supreme Court referred to various cases and has laid down that in cases of matrimonial matters, court should exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. sparingly and only it may exercise when the court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Sharma and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2016) 9 SCC 1 held as under:- “35. While discussing the scope and ambit of Section482 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 7 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 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 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 8 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 affirmative, 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.” 7. From a perusal of the FIR lodged on 28.03.2020, it transpires that the allegation made by the complainant against the accused persons is that on 28.03.2020, when a nationwide lockdown was announced during the COVID-19 pandemic, the complainant was assigned duty to maintain law and order, and when the complainant asked the petitioner to close the shop, some altercation took place between them, pursuant to which the report was lodged. Considering the aggravated situation prevailing during the COVID-19 pandemic, such reaction on the part of the persons involved was quite natural, as it was beyond the imagination of ordinary citizens that such an unprecedented situation would arise, compelling them to remain confined to their homes and to close their shops, thereby placing them in a helpless situation. Conversely, it was the duty of the police personnel to maintain law and order and to prevent people from gathering so as to avoid the risk of spread of COVID-19. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the 9 altercation was intentional, but rather a reaction arising out of the prevailing situation at that time. Further, although charges were framed on 29.08.2024, till date not a single prosecution witness has been examined before the learned trial Court. 8. Considering the nature of the allegations and the totality of the circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the incident is alleged to have occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, we deem it appropriate to quash the FIR, the charge-sheet, and the criminal prosecution against the petitioners. 9. As a fallout, the FIR of Crime No. 95/2020 registered at Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa for the offence under Section 188, 294, 506, 353, 332 and 34 of IPC, charge-sheet No. 356/2020 dated 07.10.2020 filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa are quashed and the order taking cognizance dated 23.12.2021 of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa in Criminal Case No. 1456/2021 and the order of framing charge dated 29.08.2024 in the said Criminal Case No. 1465/2021 are set aside. 10. Accordingly, the instant CRMP is allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok