1 2026:CGHC:24845-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 312 of 2026 1 - Narmada Prasad Yadav S/o Vijay Kumar Yadav Aged About 37 Years R/o Gram - Godhi, District - Korba (C.G.) 2 - Ganeshi Yadav W/o Narmada Prasad Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Gram - Godhi, District - Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bahwan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General Of Police Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Of Police Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) 4 - Station House Officer, Police Station - Civil Lines, District - Korba (C.G.) 5 - Yuvraj Singh Kurrey S/o Rajendra Kumar Kurrey Aged About 25 Years R/o Gram - Godhi, District - Korba (C.G.) (Complainant) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Dr. Arpit Lall, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1 to 4/ State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19 . 06 .202 6 1. Heard Dr. Arpit Lall, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent Nos. 1 to 4. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers : “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the First Information Report bearing Crime No. 671/2025 under Section 299, 3(5) of BNS in Police Station Civil Lines, District Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 299, 3(5) of BNS. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order whereby the police authorities / State may kindly be directed to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and lodging the FIR with malafide intention. 10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant Yuvraj Singh Kurrey has made a written complaint at Police Station, Civil Line, Korba on 26.10.2025 against the petitioners alleging therein that on 20.06.2025 the petitioner No.1 came to his house stating himself as pastor and told the complainant that he has all the sickness and problems in his because of satan in his house. It is further alleged that on 26.10.2025, the petitioner No.2 organized meeting in her house and called some other person from outside and started abusing Hindu deities and converting people and due to alleged act of the petitioners the religious sentiments of the 3 complainant was hurt and the said act comes under the category of the conversion by inducement and spreading religious confusion. On the basis of said written complaint of the complainant, the offence was registered bearing Crime No. 671/2025 against the petitioners under section 299, 3(5) of BNS. Being aggravated by the same, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel the petitioners submitted that the impugned FIR has registered only on the basis of a purely false, vague and malicious complaint, devoid of any legal or factual foundation warranting criminal prosecution. It is submitted that even if the entire allegations in the FIR are taken at their face value, no offence whatsoever under Section 299 BNS is made out. The essential ingredients of the said provision—namely, deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings—are conspicuously absent. The allegations are wholly general and unsubstantiated, lacking any specific overt act attributable to the petitioners that could remotely constitute a cognizable offence. It is further submitted that the allegation that petitioner No.1 introduced himself as a “pastor” and allegedly attributed the complainant’s health issues to “satan” is, at best, a matter of personal expression or belief and does not satisfy the legal threshold of criminal intent or malicious purpose required under criminal law. There is no allegation of any incitement to violence, public disorder, or any act likely to disturb public peace. With 4 regard to petitioner No. 2, the allegation that she organized a meeting in her house and that some persons allegedly “abused Hindu deities” is equally vague and omnibus in nature. The FIR does not disclose any specific words, acts, or participation attributable to the petitioner. Mere presence at a private gathering, without any clear allegation of intent or participation in any unlawful activity, cannot be a ground for criminal prosecution. Hence, the same be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the allegations clearly state that the petitioners, by conducting religious meetings and making derogatory remarks against Hindu deities, intentionally hurt the religious sentiments of the complainant and others present. Such acts prima facie fall within the ambit of Section 299 BNS, which deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings. He further submits that the FIR further reveals allegations of inducement and efforts towards religious conversion through misrepresentation and influence, which require proper investigation. At this stage, a detailed examination of evidence is not warranted, and the truthfulness of the allegations can only be tested during investigation. It is a settled principle of law that FIR is not an encyclopaedia of evidence and only a prima facie disclosure of offence is required to proceed with investigation. The petitioners are seeking premature interference at the threshold, which would seriously hamper the investigation. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no ground for quashing the 5 FIR, and the petition deserves to be dismissed in the interest of justice and fair investigation. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the impugned FIR, prima facie discloses allegations regarding acts alleged to have hurt religious sentiments and related allegations of inducement for conversion. At this inception stage, this Court is not required to undertake a meticulous examination of the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations, as the same falls within the domain of investigation. 7. The law relating to quashing of FIR at the threshold is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, wherein it has been categorically held that that the power of quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS) is extraordinary in nature and must be exercised sparingly, with great caution and only in exceptional cases. The Court emphasized that while considering a prayer for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, the High Court is only required to examine whether the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. At this stage, the Court cannot assess the reliability of allegations, undertake a detailed examination of evidence, conduct a mini-trial, or interfere with an ongoing investigation except in rare cases where no offence is disclosed. 6 8. Reiterating these settled principles in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that disputed questions of fact, appreciation of evidence, and consideration of the defence of the accused fall within the domain of the trial Court. Criminal proceedings should not be quashed merely because the accused raises a plausible defence. The Court further held that quashing is justified only when the material relied upon by the accused is of sterling and unimpeachable character, completely demolishes the prosecution case, remains unrefuted by the complainant/ prosecution, and continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 9. Applying the above principles to the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the FIR cannot be said to be devoid of prima facie substance so as to warrant quashing at this stage. The defence raised by the petitioners pertains to disputed questions of fact which can only be examined during investigation/trial and cannot be adjudicated in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. 10. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the FIR was registered way back on 26.10.2025 and almost 08 months have been elapsed, the investigation has not been completed, the concerned Investigating Officer is directed to 7 conclude the investigation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and submit a Police Report under Section 193(3) of BNSS before the Competent Court in accordance with law and the concerned Superintendent of Police / Senior Superintendent of Police, is directed to ensure that the investigation in the present case is carried out in a fair manner and if the petitioners are aggrieved by the charge-sheet, which is to be submitted, they are at liberty to challenge the same. 11. Petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of this order to the concerned Superintendent of Police / Senior Superintendent of Police within a period of one week from today for necessary information and compliance. 12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra