1 2026:CGHC:25292-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1572 of 2026 1 - Radheshyam Gupta S/o. Late Vishwanath Gupta, Aged About 48 Years, Resident of Kaurinbhatha, Dindyal Colony, Block No. 37, Q. No. 520, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Prajwal Gupta, S/o Radheshyam Gupta, Aged About 21 Years, Resident of Kaurinbhatha, Dindyal Colony, Block No. 37, Q. No. 520, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - Aditya Gupta, S/o Radheshyam Gupta, Aged About 19 Years, Resident of Kaurinbhatha, Dindyal Colony, Block No. 37, Q. No. 520, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through, Officer in Charge Police Station - Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Jeshal Lal @ Bunty H. Lal, S/o Suresh H. Lal Resident of Basantpur, Rajnandgaon District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicants/Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Applicants : Mr. Love Kumar Ramteke, Advocate. For Non-applicant No.1/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.06.23 11:33:55 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 22-06-2026 1. The present petition has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the F I R dated 05/05/2026 in crime No. 0199/2026 under section 296, 3(5) & 351(2) of BNS by police station Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon against the applicants, in the interest of justice". 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there are counter versions of the incident lodged by the either sides. It is stated that earlier one FIR has been lodged the applicant No.1 against non- applicant No.2 and others and the present FIR has been lodged by non-applicant No.2 against applicant No.1 and his two sons. It is also submitted that the applicant No.1 is aggrieved by the fact that applicants No.2 and 3 are arrayed in the case with oblique motive, just as pressure tactics, though no offence is disclosed against them. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants. 4. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the 3 parties and that there are counter versions of the incident and the matter needs investigation, we are not inclined to interfere in the same. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil