1 2026:CGHC:7055-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 818 of 2023 1 - Vivek Singh S/o Bachcha Singh Aged About 40 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Pasouri, Police Station And Tahsil Kelhari, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur C.G. 2 - Monu S/o Sukhnandan Aged About 35 Years Caste Panika, R/o Village Pasouri, Police Station And Tahsil Kelhari, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Superintendent Of Police, District - Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Station House Officer, Police Station Kelhari, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur C.G. 3 - Tolan Singh S/o Sher Singh Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Ghaghra, Tahsil Kelhari, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For State For Res. No. 3 : : Mr. N. K. Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate Mr. Ramsevak Soni, Advocate SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.02.11 10:22:04 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 09 .02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. K. Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State/ respondent and Mr. Ramsevak Soni, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3. 2. The present CrMP under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the FIR No. 2/2023 registered at Police Station Kelhari District-Manendragarh- Chirmiri- Bharatpur (C.G.) u/s 384, 341, 294, 323/34 of Indian Penal Code and also quashing of the order dated 28.11.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh, District-Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur (C.G.) in unregistered criminal case no. 2022, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.09.2022, respondent No.3, while transporting tent material by tractor to Village Pansori, Durga Pandal, negligently dashed the vehicle of petitioner No.1 Vivek Singh, admitted his fault on the same day and assured to 3 pay the repair expenses, for which a panchnama dated 24.09.2022 was executed (Annexure P/3); however, upon failure to pay the amount, respondent No.3 on 06.10.2022 voluntarily kept the tent material at the house of petitioner No.1 as security and executed an Amanatnama dated 06.10.2022 (Annexure P/4), yet despite the subsisting compromise and without complying with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C., respondent No.3 directly filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., pursuant to which respondent No.2 submitted a prativedan stating that no prima facie cognizable offence was made out; meanwhile, the petitioner on 20.11.2022 informed the Station House Officer, Police Station Kelhari about the compromise and the statement was recorded accordingly (Annexure P/7), but the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, exceeding jurisdiction and ignoring the police report, passed an order dated 28.11.2022 directing registration of FIR under Sections 384, 341, 294, 323, 34 IPC, leading to registration of the impugned FIR against the petitioners in complete violation of the statutory provisions of Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit the police prativedan and the entire material on record categorically establish that no prima facie cognizable offence is made out and even respondent No.3 himself expressed his unwillingness to pursue the complaint, yet the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, in complete disregard of the mandatory requirements of Sections 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. and contrary to the police 4 report, mechanically and illegally exercised jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and directed registration of FIR, although the dispute is purely civil in nature arising out of an accident admittedly caused by respondent No.3, after execution of panchnama and Amanatnama in favour of the petitioner, and as none of the essential ingredients of Sections 384, 341, 294, 323/34 IPC are made out, the impugned order dated 28.11.2022 and consequential FIR dated 13.01.2023 are a clear abuse of the process of law and therefore deserve to be quashed, and the petition be allowed in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the instant petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed, as the FIR in question has been registered pursuant to a lawful order dated 28.11.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class after due application of mind, and merely because the complainant later expressed willingness to compromise or withdraw the complaint does not obliterate the commission of cognizable offences disclosed from the complaint and material collected; it is well settled that an FIR is only meant to set the criminal law in motion and need not contain all details, which are required to be unearthed during investigation, and at this nascent stage the Hon’ble Court should refrain from exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., particularly when prima facie material exists, investigation is incomplete due to interim stay granted to the petitioners, and further evidence including 5 expert opinion is awaited; moreover, disputed questions of fact raised by the petitioners cannot be adjudicated in quashing proceedings and must be tested during trial, as held consistently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court including in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. He further submits that once the FIR has been registered, it has to be investigated and taken to its logical end. After investigation charge-sheet has been filed. Thus, at this stage, no interference is warranted in view of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021 (M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others) and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR and document annexed with the petition. 7. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if 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, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 6 8. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 9. Upon due consideration of the submissions advanced, the material placed on record and the settled principles of law, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned FIR has been registered pursuant to a lawful order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offences, which require thorough investigation; the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and at this stage the defence raised by the petitioners, including the plea of compromise and disputed questions of fact, cannot be examined in quashing proceedings; the FIR being only the initial step to set the criminal law in motion, and the investigation having remained incomplete 7 due to the interim stay granted in favour of the petitioners and in the light of judgment passed by the Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we do not find any good ground for interference as this Court does not find any patent illegality, arbitrariness or abuse of process warranting interference, and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika