1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 282 of 2026 Harkesh Kumar Jaiswal S/o Shri Prayag Prasad Aged About 47 Years Working On The Post Of Lecturer (Bio) At Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Bhatgaon, Block- Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur (C.G.), At Present Resident Of M/419, New Mines Colony, Bhatgaon, Block- Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Home (Jail), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, Post Office Rakhi, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - The Inspector General Of Police Surguja Range, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 3 - The Superintendent Of Police Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) 4 - The Station House Officer Police Station- Bhatgaon, District- Surajpur (C.G.) 5 - Mohit Ram Rajwade S/o Raghuvar Rajwade Aged About 38 Years R/o Village- Karkoli Naya, Police Station And Tahsil Bhatgaon, District Surajpur (C.G.) 6 - Principal Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Bhatgaon, Block- Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.05.15 20:57:30 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 15/05/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No. 64/2026 registered at Police Station Bhatgaon, District Surajpur for the offences punishable under Section 75(1)(iii) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and also for a direction to respondent No. 2 to conduct fair and impartial enquiry on the complaint submitted by the petitioner. 3. As per the case of the petitioner, he is working as Lecturer (Biology) at Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Bhatgaon since the year 2008 and his wife is also serving as Lecturer in the same institution. According to him, there has never been any complaint against him during the last about 17 years of service. It has been pleaded that while the petitioner had gone to Kota, Rajasthan on 01.04.2026 to look after his children, who are preparing for NEET examination, taking advantage of his absence, one of his colleagues namely Satish Pandey, owing to personal and departmental rivalry, instigated certain students and their 3 parents to lodge a false complaint against him alleging inappropriate conduct with a girl student. 4. It has further been pleaded that though the alleged incident is said to have occurred on 16.02.2026, complaint was made only on 06.04.2026 after an unexplained delay of about 50 days. Pursuant thereto, FIR bearing Crime No. 64/2026 came to be registered against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner has alleged that the FIR is false, malicious and has been lodged due to personal enmity and media pressure. It is also pleaded that departmental enquiry is already pending in respect of the allegations and the criminal proceedings have been initiated only to harass and malign the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the allegations mentioned in the FIR are taken at their face value, no offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act or Section 75(1)(iii) of the BNS is made out against the petitioner. He would submit that the essential ingredients constituting sexual assault are absent in the FIR and there is also no allegation attracting the offence under Section 75(1)(iii) of the BNS. He further submits that the FIR suffers from unexplained and inordinate delay of about 50 days, which itself creates serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the allegations. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to personal and departmental rivalry by certain colleagues and respondent No. 5. It is contended that the petitioner had earlier been threatened by respondent No. 5 with false implication unless illegal demand of money was fulfilled. He would 4 further submit that the allegations are inherently improbable as the alleged incident is said to have taken place in a classroom where several students were present. Therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the FIR discloses cognizable offences and the allegations made therein require thorough investigation. He would submit that at the stage of investigation, this Court ought not to embark upon appreciation of disputed questions of fact while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 8. Learned State counsel would further submit that the allegations pertain to offences under the POCSO Act involving a minor girl student and the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations can only be examined after proper investigation. It is submitted that delay in lodging the FIR by itself cannot be a ground to quash criminal proceedings in cases of this nature. He therefore prays for dismissal of the petition. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the FIR prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offences and the allegations made therein cannot be said to be so absurd or inherently improbable at this stage so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The pleas raised by the petitioner relating to false implication, delay in lodging FIR, departmental rivalry and mala fide involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be 5 adjudicated in proceedings of the present nature. It is well settled that the power for quashing of FIR is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to stifle the legitimate investigation. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, it is observed that if the petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with the aforesaid crime, he shall be at liberty to take recourse to such remedy as is available to him under law. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved