1 2026:CGHC:26808-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1694 of 2026 1 - Nafish Ahmed S/o Ushaman Samana @ Rajraj Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Muzaffarnagar, Ramraj, Uttar Pradesh 2 - Imran Ali S/o Akhtar Ali Aged About 52 Years R/o Samana @ Ramraj, Muzaffarnagar, Ramraj Uttarpradesh (Petitioner No. 2 Name Has Wrongly Typed As P/2) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director General Of Police Police Department, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent of Police Korea, Chhattisgarh 4 - Station House Officer Police Station Baikunthpur, District- Korea (C.G.) 5 - Amir Singh Paikra S/o Late Shital Prasad Singh Aged About 64 Years R/o Baselpur, Village Sanwala, Police Station Baikunthpur, District- Korea (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For State : Shri S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 01.07.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking following reliefs: INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.07.01 18:30:25 +0530 2 “A) It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and pleased to quash the F.I.R which has been registered as Crime No. 13/2025 at police station Baikunthpur, District- Korea for offence under section 140(3), 318, 308(5), 61(2) of B.N.S, and all further proceedings of the learned trial court. (B) Any other relief/order may also be granted that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2 Facts of the case, in brief, are that, the complainant/Respondent No.5 lodged an oral complaint at Police Station Baikunthpur on 10.01.2025 that on 05.01.2025 at about 9:00 AM the accused persons approached to him and offered to level his agricultural land at a low cost using a JCB machine. After both parties agreed, the leveling work was commenced. The complainant further alleged that, two days later, the co-accused forcibly took him on a motorcycle to the State Bank of India at Baikunthpur Branch; threatened him with dire consequence, and compelled him to prematurely withdraw his fixed deposit of Rs. 15,00,000/- and after taking an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- they were absconded. On the basis of said complaint, Crime No.13/2025 was registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons for the offence under Sections 140(3), 318, 308(5), 61(2) of B.N.S at Police Station Baikunthpur, District Korea. 3 The counsel for the petitioners would submit that they are labourers from another State engaged solely for land-leveling work through a JCB machine and completed the assigned work within the stipulated time. According to them, the complainant was dissatisfied with the quality of the work and while making online payment towards the JCB machine charges, deliberately withheld the labour charges. To avoid 3 payment of the labourers', the complainant intentionally lodged a false and fabricated FIR against the petitioners. Therefore, the petition may be allowed and FIR followed by investigation and filing of charge-sheet against the petitioners may be quashed as no prima facie case against them is made out. 4 We have heard the counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5 The record reveals that after registration of FIR, the petitioners did not cooperate with the investigation and remained absconding. Owing to their non-availability, the investigating agency proceeded against the available accused and initially filed the charge-sheet only against co- accused Adil. The trial against Adil was culminated into his acquittal on appreciation of the evidence adduced before the Trial Court. It is only thereafter that the present petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the FIR relying upon the acquittal of co-accused. Further, challan has already been filed against the petitioners. 6 The conduct of the petitioners in remaining absconding during the investigation dis-entitles them to seek equitable relief under the extraordinary and inherent jurisdiction of this Court. A person who deliberately avoids the process of law cannot subsequently invoke the inherent powers of the Court solely on the basis of acquittal of a co- accused. The acquittal of Adil does not automatically give benefit to the present petitioners particularly when they were not before the Trial Court and the allegations against them are yet to be examined in accordance with law. Their absconding and filing of this petition after acquittal of co-accused Adil itself shows that some sort of role seems 4 to have been played by the petitioners in the alleged transaction. Such disputed questions of fact require appreciation of evidence during trial and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings seeking quashment. 7 Thus, this court has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that prima facie the ingredients that are required for framing of charge is made out. All the other aspects which the petitioners intend to assail are their defence which can only be looked into after the evidence of either side are adduced and the same cannot be looked into at this stage. 8 Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder