1 2026:CGHC:7835-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3505 of 2024 1 - Shashikiran Atbhaiya W/o Bhupendra Kumar Atbhaiya Aged About 36 Years R/o- Near Mahadeva Talab, Changorabhatha, Deendayal Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Bhupendra Kumar Atbhaiya S/o Kuwar Singh Atbhaiya Aged About 40 Years R/o- Near Mahadeva Talab, Changorabhatha, Deendayal Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station- Rakhi Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Vijay Kumar Das S/o B.R. Das Aged About 47 Years R/o- Lig 66, Avanti Vihar Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.02.19 10:43:22 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12/02/2026 1. Heard Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the Respondent/State, Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:- “1. To kindly quash the FIR dated 02.11.2024 bearing Crime No. 229/2024 registered at Police Station Rakhi, District Raipur (C.G.) against the petitioners for the offence U/s 417, 120-B of IPC (Annexure-P/1). 2. To kindly quash impugned order dated 03.09.2024 (Annexure-P/2), whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Raipur (C.G.) in case no. Unregistered/2023 has accepted the application U/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent no. 2/complainant and has directed the Station House Officer Police Station Rakhi, District Raipur (C.G.) to register FIR against the petitioners and to present Final Report after completion of the investigation. 3. And to grant any other relief to the petitioners as 3 this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted to the petitioners.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 is the complainant in the present case, he filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur on 18.10.2023 making a complaint that he is practicing as an advocate, the petitioner No.1 Shashikaran Atbhaiya lodged a compliant against him before the Police as well as Higher Authorities of the State for the offence under Section 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. The petitioner No.1 is working as Co-operative Inspector posted at the Office of Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Indrawati Bhawan Nawa Raipur. It is alleged in the complaint made by the petitioner No.1 against the respondent No.2 that he engaged in illegal activities of engaging in election duty, harassing her at the office of Registrar, Nawa Raipur and preparing the forged letter head in the name of Vide President of a particular political party of the State and used for posting on deputation at Chhattisgarh Rajbhasha Ayog. The complaint was inquired by the Police Authorities and submitted their report in between 06.07.2020 and 24.02.2021 to the Higher Authorities and found the complaint against the respondent No.2 false. In the application by the respondent No.2 it is alleged that the husband of the petitioner No.1 i.e. petitioner No.2 had given two cheques to the brother of the complainant namely Sanjay Kumar Das on 10.02.2020 for the total consideration of Rs. 13,25,000/- which was dishonored by the payee bank on 12.02.2020 and only to 4 came out from the liability to pay the amount of cheques, the complaint was filed by the petitioner No.1, therefore, the FIR may be registered against the present petitioners/proposed accused persons and after inquiry police report may be filed. On the application of the respondent No.2, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur directed the Police Station Rakhi to register the FIR and to investigate into the matter and allowed the application on 03.09.2024. The said order dated 03.09.2024 and FIR dated 02.11.2024 is under challenge in the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR is nothing but a counterblast and an abuse of the process of law, as the respondent No. 2/complainant has repeatedly initiated proceedings on the same set of allegations which were earlier dismissed on merits by the learned JMFC vide order dated 17.03.2022, affirmed in revision on 07.04.2022, and are presently subject matter of CRMP No. 1931/2023 pending before this Hon’ble Court. It is contended that without disclosing the dismissal of the earlier application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and in absence of any fresh material or exceptional circumstances, the respondent No. 2 procured registration of the present FIR, which is impermissible in law as a second complaint on identical facts cannot be entertained. It is further submitted that multiple criminal proceedings between the parties, including cases under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and other FIRs lodged by both sides, demonstrate that the present proceedings are actuated by mala fide intent to harass the petitioners and to evade liability arising 5 out of cheque bounce cases. Hence, the continuation of the impugned FIR amounts to gross misuse of the criminal justice system and deserves to be quashed. 5. She would further submits that on the complaint made by the petitioner No.1, an FIR was registered against the respondent No.2 on 26.02.2020 for the offence under Section 354 and 506 of IPC, Crime No. 83/2020 registered at Police Station DD Nagar Raipur. The respondent No.2 had taken various cheques from her husband as a security out of which two cheques were misused and the respondent No.2 get it dishonored from the bank. Despite the payment of outstanding amount to him an acknowledgment has also been executed by the respondent No.2 on 11.02.2020. When they came to know about misusing of the cheque, the petitioner No.2 lodged a complaint to Moudhapara Police on 19.05.2020 and another offence of Crime No. 52/2020 for the offence under Section 406 of IPC was registered. 6. She would further submits that earlier also the respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint against the petitioner No.2 on 20.07.2020 for which the offence of Crime No. 190/2020 for the offence under Section 419 of IPC was registered at Police Station Khamardih, Raipur in which the closure report was submitted on 31.08.2022. It is also submitted that with respect to the alleged harassment to the petitioners by the respondent No.2 and his brother they made another complaint to the Director General of Police, Raipur but no action has been taken on that complaint, therefore, the entire matter may be inquired and an appropriate proceeding may be drawn against the accused persons. 6 She would refer to the documents annexed with the petition and submits that the looking to the controversies between the parties, the FIR was registered against the present petitioners is shear misuse of process of law as well as process of the Court,and it is only a counterblast against the complaint made by the petitioners against the respondent No.2 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the impugned order dated 03.09.2024 has been passed by the learned JMFC after due application of mind on the material placed along with the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and the FIR has been registered pursuant to a judicial direction. It is contended that the allegations disclosed in the complaint prima facie constitute cognizable offences under Sections 417 and 120-B IPC and, therefore, warrant investigation. It is further submitted that the plea regarding earlier dismissal of complaint and pendency of other proceedings involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of BNSS at the threshold. The State submits that the investigation is at a nascent stage and unless the allegations are inherently absurd or do not disclose any offence, the FIR ought not to be quashed, and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submits that the present petition is misconceived and has been filed with the sole intention to thwart a lawful investigation initiated pursuant to a judicial 7 order passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is contended that the complaint discloses specific and prima facie cognizable offences under Sections 417 and 120-B IPC, and the learned JMFC, after considering the material and the police enquiry report, rightly directed registration of the FIR. It is further submitted that the earlier dismissal of a complaint does not operate as a bar in the facts of the present case, as the present proceedings are based on material which warranted fresh consideration, and in any case, such issues involve disputed questions of fact that cannot be adjudicated in proceedings for quashment. The respondent No. 2 denies any suppression or mala fide and submits that the petitioners are attempting to avoid criminal liability and delay the course of justice. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 10. In the matter of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in AIR Online 2021 SC 192, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 23 held as under :- “23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest 8 the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under: (i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; (ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; (iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; (iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). (v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; (vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; (vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an 9 exception rather than an ordinary rule; (viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; (ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; (x) Save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;” 11. From the complaint made by the respondent No.2 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, based on which the FIR has been registered against the petitioners, it transpires that there are allegations and counter allegations against the parties and it transpires that the respondent No.2 has made an application of lodging false complaint against them by the present petitioners that they are harassing them on various issues which was found false on the inquiry conducted by the police authorities. There are certain proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and with respect to the dishonor of cheques before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. It is also an allegation against the petitioner No.1 that she being posted at higher post at Raipur, misused the influential position of her posting and made various complaints to the authorities against the respondent No.2. It is also alleged that she along with her husband conspired together and made false complaint only to pressurize the respondent No.2 and to 10 came out from the liability of payment of amount under the cheques. 12. Further considering the various proceedings between the parties and orders passed by various Courts including the order dated 04.07.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in CRMP No. 1733/2024, order dated 20.01.2025 passed by this Court in CRMP No. 805/2020, CRMP No. 879/2020, CRMP No. 923/2021, CRMP No. 1023/2020, CRMP No. 1030/2020 and also the order dated 21.01.2025 passed in CRMP No. 1931/2022 order passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 11.12.2022 in CRMP No. 3352/2024 and further the allegations made in the complaint/FIR lodged by the respondent No.2. There are sufficient prima-facie material for the registration of the FIR and to investigate into the matter. 13. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned FIR has been registered pursuant to a reasoned order passed by the learned JMFC under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and the allegations made therein prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences. The grounds urged by the petitioners pertain to disputed questions of fact, previous litigation between the parties and alleged mala fides, which cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 at the stage of investigation. It is settled law that inherent powers for quashment are to be exercised sparingly and only where no offence is made out on the face of the record. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstance is made out warranting interference. Accordingly, the 11 petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. The impugned FIR has been registered pursuant to a judicial order and the allegations, on their face, disclose cognizable offences requiring investigation. The issues raised by the petitioners involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. No case is made out for exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashment of the FIR or the order passed by the learned JMFC. 15. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok