1 2026:CGHC:10799-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1092 of 2025 1 - Bhanu Pratap Singh S/o Lt. Vinod Singh Aged About 31 Years R/o New Rajendra Nagar, L.I.G.- I-22, Rishabh Nagar, Police Station- New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Accused) 2 - Aman Poddar S/o Bakhugi Poddar Aged About 27 Years R/o Dixit Apartment 3rd Floor, Sector 01, Professor Colony, Police Station Poorani Basti, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Yagdatt Verma S/o Dev Sharan Verma Aged About 31 Years R/o Laxmi Nagar Mowa, Police Station Mowa, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Nilesh Pratap Singh S/o Umesh Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o House No. A Block, Vrindavan Garden, Mowa, Police Station Mowa, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Others Through The S.H.O., Police Station Khamardih, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Prosecution) 2 - Vinod Kumar Mawa S/o Shri Shayam Lal Mawa Aged About 55 Years R/o 618/2, Sale Tax Colony, Police Station Khamardih, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001 (Complainant) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ritesh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.03.03 15:39:23 +0530 2 Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 02.03.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ritesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.2 / State. 2. As per the office report dated 02.05.2025, it transpires that notice issued to respondent No.2 has been served on 13.05.2025 through the Superintendent of Police, Raipur. 3. Since the respondent No.2 has been duly served, but inspite service, none appears on his behalf, we deem it appropriate to proceed with the matter. 4. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayer: “I. The FIR bearing No. 327/2024 registered at Police Station Khamardih, District Raipur, C.G. II. Consequent Charge Sheet bearing No. 266/2024 dated 26/07/2024 emanating from the FIR bearing No. 327/2024 registered at Police Station Khamardih, District Raipur, C.G filed for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS. 3 III. The order dated 29/07/2024 taking cognizance of the aforesaid charge sheet and consequent orders, and IV. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 13726/2024 parties being 'State of C.G. vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh & others pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in the ends of justice.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that the impugned FIR No. 327/2024 is nothing but a malicious counterblast to FIR No. 326/2024 lodged by Petitioner No.1 against Respondent No.2 in respect of the assault committed upon him, and the fact that the counter FIR was registered merely ten minutes after the earlier FIR clearly demonstrates that it was an afterthought, instituted with ulterior motive to pressurize and harass the petitioners and to create a false defence. It is contended that a bare perusal of the FIR and charge-sheet does not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, as the allegations are vague, omnibus and unsupported by any independent or credible evidence, there being no neutral witness to corroborate the version of Respondent No.2, whereas the petitioners have placed on record medical evidence showing injuries sustained by Petitioner No.1 along with seizure of the iron shovel used in the assault, which substantiates their version. It is further argued that the allegation that the petitioners visited the 4 residence of Respondent No.2 to compel withdrawal of an alleged insurance dispute is a fabricated and improbable story introduced only after registration of the earlier FIR, thereby exposing the mala fide intent behind the counter complaint; learned counsel also submits that the investigation was conducted in undue haste and the charge-sheet was filed mechanically without proper scrutiny, despite the fact that the entire incident was captured in CCTV footage stored in the DVR at the residence of Respondent No.2, which footage, though seized by the police, has not been produced or relied upon, raising serious doubts about fairness and impartiality of the investigation. Thus, it is contended that continuation of the criminal proceedings arising out of such retaliatory and malicious prosecution amounts to abuse of the process of law and deserves to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the impugned FIR No. 327/2024 was registered on the basis of a written complaint disclosing commission of cognizable offences, and the police authorities were duty-bound in law to register and investigate the same. Thus, there is no illegality or infirmity in registration of the FIR. The contention of the petitioners that the FIR is a mere counterblast is misconceived and unsustainable, inasmuch as the complaint of the private respondent was lodged on the same day i.e. 26.07.2024 at 04:50 PM, and the mere proximity of time does not by itself render the complaint false or 5 mala fide. Rather, both FIRs disclose rival versions of the same incident which can only be adjudicated upon appreciation of evidence during trial. It is further submitted that during investigation the statements of witnesses were recorded, material evidence was collected, and upon due satisfaction regarding prima facie involvement of the petitioners, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Jurisdictional Magistrate in accordance with law. The present petition, being devoid of merit and substance and filed belatedly after filing of charge-sheet and commencement of proceedings, deserves to be dismissed at the threshold in the interest of justice. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with this petitions. 8. 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 CrPC should be exercised, which are as under: - “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the 6 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 is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 7 (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.” 9. Keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court is required to examine whether the allegations made in the impugned FIR, even if taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, disclose commission of any offence or whether the proceedings are manifestly attended 8 with mala fide intention. 10. It is not in dispute that FIR No. 326/2024 was lodged by Petitioner No.1 at 04:40 PM on 26.07.2024 alleging assault by Respondent No.2 and that within a span of ten minutes thereafter, the impugned FIR No. 327/2024 came to be registered at 04:50 PM at the instance of Respondent No.2. The admitted position that both FIRs arise out of the same incident, coupled with the extremely short interval between them, lends considerable support to the contention of the petitioners that the second FIR is a retaliatory version set up as a counterblast. 11. A careful reading of the impugned FIR and the charge-sheet reveals that the allegations against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature without specific attribution of overt acts. No independent witness has been cited to corroborate the allegations of Respondent No.2. On the contrary, the medical evidence placed on record indicates that Petitioner No.1 sustained injuries in the incident and the alleged weapon of assault was seized. The prosecution has also not placed reliance upon the CCTV footage admittedly seized from the residence of Respondent No.2, which creates serious doubt regarding fairness and completeness of the investigation. 12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the present case falls within the categories illustrated in Bhajan Lal (supra), particularly where the criminal proceeding appears to be manifestly attended 9 with mala fide intention and instituted with an ulterior motive. Continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 13. Accordingly, in exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 327/2024 registered at Police Station Khamardih, District Raipur, the consequent Charge Sheet No. 266/2024 dated 26.07.2024, the order dated 29.07.2024 taking cognizance thereof and all further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 13726/2024 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, are hereby quashed. 14. The petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet