1 2026:CGHC:24993 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 986 of 2022 1 - Lokesh Jain S/o Shri Kamalchand Jain Aged About 41 Years R/o Sadar Bazar, Main Road Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - Nilesh Jain S/o Shri Kamalchand Jain Aged About 39 Years R/o Sadar Bazar, Main Road Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, (C.G.) 3 - Kamalchand Jain S/o Late Premchand Jain Aged About 67 Years R/o Sadar Bazar, Main Road Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Golbazar Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Thee Superintendent Of Police Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Secretary To Home Minister State Govt. Of Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.06.2026 1. Heard Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 3. SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.06.20 18:27:37 +0530 2 2. By filing the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for following relief :- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and criminal complaint case dated 23/04/2022 registered before police station Gole Bazar, District Raipur in crime No.89/2022 for an offence under section 464,471,34 of IPC may kindly be quashed by this Hon'ble court , in the interest of justice.” 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Sanket Kumar Daftri, resident of Raipur, lodged a report alleging that the petitioners, acting through certain power of attorney holders, had executed and utilized a forged registered document relating to immovable property. On the basis of the said complaint, Police Station Gole Bazar, Raipur registered an FIR and, upon investigation, filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 464 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated and that no offence, as alleged, is made out against them. It is contended that the prosecution has been initiated on the basis of false and fabricated allegations and that, prior to registration of the present FIR, the petitioners had lodged a complaint dated 08.08.2020 against certain persons alleging illegal deletion of their names and insertion of the names 3 of the said persons in the relevant records. He further submits that the case is fixed before the trial Court for recording of prosecution evidence on 28.07.2026. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that, upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet has already been filed against the petitioners and the matter is presently pending trial before the competent Court. He further submits that the case is fixed for recording of prosecution evidence on 28.07.2026 and, therefore, the trial has already commenced. Learned State counsel concurs with the submission made on behalf of the petitioners regarding the present stage of the proceedings and contends that, in view of the pendency of the trial, all factual and legal defences available to the petitioners can appropriately be raised before the trial Court. It is thus submitted that no interference is warranted at this stage in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record. 7. Upon due consideration of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the FIR in question was registered on the basis of allegations relating to execution and use of a forged registered document concerning immovable property. The matter was duly investigated by the police and, upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet has already 4 been filed before the competent criminal Court for offences punishable under Sections 464 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 8. The status report placed before this Court further reveals that the criminal case is presently pending trial and is fixed for recording of prosecution evidence on 28.07.2026. Thus, the proceedings have already progressed beyond the stage of investigation and have entered the stage of appreciation of evidence by the trial Court. 9. It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in exceptional cases where the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation do not disclose the commission of any offence or where continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 10. At this stage, this Court is not expected to embark upon a meticulous examination of the evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners regarding their innocence, alleged falsity of the accusations, improper investigation, and the circumstances leading to registration of the FIR are all matters which require appreciation of evidence and determination on the basis of material to be adduced before the trial Court. 5 11. From a perusal of the record, this Court is unable to hold that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. The allegations levelled against them cannot be said to be so absurd, inherently improbable or legally untenable as to warrant quashment of the proceedings at this stage. Since the trial is already in progress and the matter is fixed for recording of prosecution evidence, the petitioners shall have ample opportunity to raise all permissible factual and legal defences before the trial Court. 12. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any exceptional ground warranting interference in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. 13. Resultantly, the instant petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Shubham