1 2026:CGHC:23122-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1386 of 2026 Satish Mishra S/o R.K. Mishra Aged About 46 Years R/o Asma City, P.S. Sakri, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Sakri, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Sakshi Joshi W/o Sudhir Joshi Aged About 44 Years R/o Bhagya Shri Tower, Kududand, P.S. Civil Line, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 15/05/2026 1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, learned Dy. Govt. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.05.19 10:41:35 +0530 2 Advocate, appearing for Respondent/State. 2. The present Cr.M.P. has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the First Information Report bearing Crime No. 359/2026 dated 28.04.2026 registered at Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offences under Sections 140(3), 308(5), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, insofar as it relates to the petitioner, in the interest of justice." 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.04.2026 the complainant lodged a written complaint at Police Station Sakri alleging that the present petitioner had called her son Mayank Joshi and his friend Ujjwal Rana to his house on different dates between 20.02.2026 and 24.02.2026 in connection with an alleged theft committed by petitioner’s son Pranay Mishra. It is alleged that the petitioner, along with certain other persons whom he introduced as police officials, threatened Mayank and Ujjwal with dire consequences, confined them in his house, and took them to unknown places in vehicles bearing “POLICE” markings. It was further alleged that the petitioner and his associates threatened the boys and attempted to extort money from them. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR has been registered against the petitioner and others for offences under Sections 140(3), 308(5) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations 3 made in the FIR are false, exaggerated and have been lodged with mala fide intention as a counterblast to the complaints earlier made by the petitioner against Mayank Joshi and Ujjwal Rana in relation to theft of jewellery worth Rs.75-80 lakhs from his house. It is stated that the petitioner had submitted complaints before Police Station Sakri on 26.03.2026, before the Superintendent of Police on 01.04.2026 and before the Inspector General of Police on 08.04.2026, alleging involvement of Mayank and Ujjwal in the theft and extortion of his son Pranay Mishra. When no action was taken, the petitioner held a press conference on 11.04.2026 against the inaction of the police authorities, after which Crime No.333/2026 was registered against petitioner’s son and others, but not against Mayank and Ujjwal, despite specific allegations against them. 5. It is further submitted that the impugned FIR dated 28.04.2026 has been lodged after an unexplained delay of more than two months from the alleged incidents, which creates serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the allegations. The petitioner also contends that the offence under Section 308(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita has been wrongly invoked, as no ingredients of extortion are made out from the allegations contained in the FIR. The petitioner further submits that he has no criminal antecedents, his wife is suffering from breast cancer and undergoing treatment at AIIMS Raipur, and the present case is purely a result of personal dispute and false implication. 6. Learned State counsel would submit that, the present petitioner 4 had earlier preferred an application for grant of bail before this Court registered as MCRC No. 4402 of 2026 (Satish Mishra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh), wherein this Court, vide order dated 12.05.2026, after hearing the parties, observed that the investigation was still in progress and charge-sheet had not been filed till date. Considering the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, the period of detention and pendency of investigation, this Court directed the concerned Superintendent of Police to file his personal affidavit disclosing the evidence collected during the course of investigation against the petitioner and directed listing of the matter after summer vacation. The said order itself reflects that the investigation was incomplete. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the present petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing MCRC No. 4402 of 2026 (Satish Mishra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) seeking grant of bail, wherein this Court, vide order dated 12.05.2026, after considering the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioner, the period of detention and the stage of investigation, directed the concerned Superintendent of Police to file a personal affidavit disclosing the evidence collected during the course of investigation against the petitioner and further directed listing of the matter after summer vacation. The said order clearly demonstrates that the investigation was still in progress and the matter was under active consideration of the competent Court. 5 9. At this stage, when the investigation is continuing and the Superintendent of Police has already directed to file his affidavit, disclosing the evidence collected during the investigation against the petitioner and also in view of the allegation that the petitioner involved in extort money from the complainant along with his other friends, the matter requires detailed investigation and therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present case in exercise of its inherent/jurisdictional powers. The manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed disclosed from the FIR, prima facie commission of cognizable offence appears and investigation is reach at its logical conclusion and the ground raised by the petitioner in the present petition cannot be adjudicated on this preliminary stage. The defence sought to be raised by the petitioner requires appreciation of evidence, which is a matter for investigation and trial. 10. Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground warranting interference in the present matter and the petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika