1 2026:CGHC:825-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 19 of 2026 Satish Ghosle S/o Ude Ram Aged About 35 Years R/o Nawagaon, Police Station Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Chandrika Parmanand Rathore W/o Parmanand Rathore Aged About 42 Years R/o Nawagaon, Police Station Baloda, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 07.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State/respondent No.1. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.01.08 10:52:58 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “It is, therefore, prayed this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the application and also be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned First Information Report bearing Crime Report bearing Information First No.389/2025 dated 02-10-2025 registered for the offence under Section 296 and 351 (2) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita by the Police of Police Station Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Annexure P-1), in the interest of justice.” 3. Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 lodged a complaint at Police Station Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), alleging that due to a dispute over parking of a vehicle, the petitioner abused her in filthy language and threatened to kill her. He further submits that on the basis of the said complaint, an FIR has been registered against the present petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 296 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa. 4. Mr. Chandra contends that as per the knowledge of the petitioner, no charge-sheet has been filed till date, and that even upon perusal of the material collected during investigation, no prima facie offence is made out against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the impugned FIR dated 02.10.2025 is the outcome of previous enmity and has been lodged with an ulterior 3 motive, rendering it illegal, arbitrary, and liable to be quashed. He points out that prior to the present FIR, the petitioner had lodged an FIR dated 01.07.2025 against the husband of the complainant, pursuant to which offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 324 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and provisions of the SC/ST Act were registered at Police Station AJKS, Janjgir. In the said case, a charge-sheet has already been filed on 05.08.2025 and the trial is pending. Hence, the present FIR has been lodged as a counterblast, which is evident from the FIR and final report collectively filed as Annexure P-2. 5. Mr. Chandra further submits that the complainant is the elected Sarpanch of the same village, whereas the petitioner’s brother is associated with Social Medical News 24, and the petitioner himself is working as an Engineer. Due to alleged irregularities in road construction, news relating thereto was made viral by the petitioner’s brother, which annoyed the complainant, and consequently, a false and motivated report has been lodged against the petitioner. Accordingly, learned counsel submits that the impugned FIR is a clear abuse of the process of law and deserves to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No.1, opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the impugned FIR has been registered strictly in 4 accordance with law. He contends that the allegations disclose commission of cognizable offences and that the matter is still under investigation, therefore, no interference is warranted at this stage. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, considered their rival submissions, and have carefully perused the pleadings and the documents appended with the petition as well as the material available on record. 8. Upon due consideration of the entire material available on record, this Court finds that the allegations levelled in the FIR, on their face value, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 296 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. At this stage, it would be impermissible for this Court to examine the truthfulness of the allegations or to appreciate the sufficiency of evidence, as the same squarely falls within the domain of investigation and trial. 9. The plea advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned FIR is a counterblast to the earlier FIR lodged by the petitioner against the husband of the complainant has been duly considered by this Court. However, even assuming that the present FIR has been lodged as a counterblast, the same by itself does not constitute a valid ground for quashing the criminal proceedings when the allegations in the FIR disclose the ingredients of cognizable offences. The issue of mala fides or previous enmity 5 involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of inherent or extraordinary jurisdiction at this stage. 10. This Court is further guided by the settled principle of law that the power to quash criminal proceedings is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and only in exceptional circumstances. The present case does not fall within such exceptional parameters. Since the investigation is still underway, interference at this stage would amount to pre-empting the statutory process. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in the instant petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined only to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not prejudice the rights of the petitioner during investigation or at any subsequent stage of the proceedings. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu