1 2026:CGHC:27016-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1701 of 2026 1 - Bharat Singh Khandekar S/o Late Mangal Singh Khandekar, Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Devgaon, Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Arun Khandekar, S/o Bharat Singh Khandekar, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Devgaon, Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sanju Kumar Khandekar, S/o Bharat Singh Khandekar, Now Aged ... Years, R/o Village Devgaon, Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chandrika Khandekar, W/o Abhiram Khandekar, Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Devgaon, Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Samrath Singh Marhas, Advocate For State/ Respondent No.1 : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 02.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Samrath Singh Marhas, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, learned Deputy ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been filed by the petitioners seeking following reliefs : “I. Quash the impugned First Information Report No. 30/2023, dated 21.01.2023, registered at Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur against the Petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 294, 323, 506 & 34 of Indian Penal Code; & II. Quash the charge sheet (Annexure P/I) filed by the Police of Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur against the Petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 294, 323, 506 & 34 of Indian Penal Code in consequence of First Information Report No. 30/2023 registered at Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, & III. Quash the order taking cognizance dated 18.07.2023 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Case ISSION Wo. 5165/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 354,294,506, 324 & 34 of Indian Penal Code: & IV. Quash the order framing charges against the Petitioners, dated 31.10.2025, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 5165/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 294, 506 (Part 2) & 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code; & V. Quash the charges (Annexure P/3) framed against the Petitioners, dated 31.10.2025 by the 3 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 5165/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 294, 506 (Part 2) & 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code; & VI. Quash the consequential criminal proceedings in Case No. 5165/2023 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh against the Petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 294, 506 (Part 2) & 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that Petitioner No. 1 was the elected Sarpanch of Village Devgaon, Janpad Panchayat Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, and Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are his sons. In June 2020, Petitioner No.1, in his official capacity as Sarpanch, lodged a complaint before the Tehsildar, Masturi, seeking removal of illegal encroachments over government land situated at Village Devgaon. Acting upon the said complaint, the Tehsildar registered Case No. Ra/Pr/Kr/16 A-68/19-20 and passed an interim order staying further construction by the encroachers, including the complainant party. Subsequently, on 21.01.2023, Respondent No. 2 lodged a First Information Report against the Petitioners, alleging offences under Sections 354, 294, 506, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in relation to an incident that allegedly occurred while the Petitioners objected to construction over the disputed government land. Pursuant thereto, the police filed a charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial 4 Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, and charges were framed against the Petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the impugned First Information Report, the consequential charge-sheet, the order taking cognizance, and the order framing charges are wholly illegal, arbitrary, and constitute an abuse of the process of law. It is contended that the Petitioner No. 1, while discharging his official duties as the elected Sarpanch of Village Devgaon, had initiated proceedings before the Tehsildar for removal of illegal encroachments over government land, which included the encroachment made by the complainant party. Pursuant to the said complaint, the Tehsildar registered proceedings and passed an order restraining further construction over the encroached land. The present criminal case has been instituted only as a counterblast to the lawful action initiated by the Petitioner No. 1 and with the sole intention of wreaking vengeance and pressurising the Petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that even if the allegations contained in the First Information Report are accepted in their entirety, the same do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the Petitioners. The allegations are vague, omnibus, and inherently improbable and fail to establish the commission of offences punishable under Sections 354, 294, 506, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further argued that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to a misuse of the criminal 5 justice system and an abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, the impugned First Information Report, charge-sheet, order taking cognizance, and order framing charges deserve to be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court to secure the ends of justice. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the petition and submits that the impugned First Information Report was registered on the basis of a specific and cognizable complaint disclosing the commission of offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. It is contended that the allegations made by the complainant are clear, specific, and supported by the material collected during the course of investigation. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer found sufficient evidence to file the charge-sheet, whereupon the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, after due application of mind, took cognizance of the offences and subsequently framed charges against the Petitioners. Thus, the criminal proceedings have progressed in accordance with law. Learned State counsel further submits that the pleas raised by the Petitioners, including the contention that the prosecution is a counterblast to the proceedings initiated for removal of encroachment, involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings seeking quashment of the criminal case. Such a defence can only be examined during trial on the basis of evidence led by the parties. It is argued that at the stage of considering a petition for quashing, the Court is only 6 required to examine whether the allegations in the First Information Report and the material collected during investigation prima facie disclose the commission of the alleged offences. Since the allegations disclose the commission of cognizable offences and the trial has already commenced after framing of charges, no case is made out for exercising the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and as such, the petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. The principal contention of the Petitioners is that the criminal proceedings have been initiated as a counterblast to the complaint lodged by Petitioner No. 1, who, in his capacity as Sarpanch, had initiated proceedings before the Tehsildar for removal of illegal encroachment from government land. It is contended that the allegations levelled in the First Information Report are false and have been made with an ulterior motive. However, the existence of previous enmity or an alleged motive for false implication, by itself, cannot constitute a ground for quashing criminal proceedings where the First Information Report discloses the commission of cognizable offences and the investigating agency, after due investigation, has filed a charge-sheet. 8. A careful reading of the First Information Report reveals specific allegations against the Petitioners regarding assault, use of 7 criminal force, criminal intimidation, and outraging the modesty of the complainant. The truthfulness, correctness, or otherwise of these allegations can only be determined on appreciation of evidence during trial. At this stage, this Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or sufficiency of the evidence or adjudicate upon the defence set up by the Petitioners. 9. The scope of interference under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is well settled. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court illustratively enumerated the categories of cases wherein the extraordinary power to quash criminal proceedings may be exercised. The Court simultaneously cautioned that such power is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in the rarest of rare cases. The present case does not fall within any of the categories formulated in Bhajan Lal (supra) warranting interference. 10. Likewise, in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that while exercising jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings, the High Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or evaluate the correctness of the allegations. If the allegations in the First Information Report, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court should ordinarily refrain from stalling the prosecution. The Court further held that disputed questions of fact and the defence of the accused are 8 matters to be considered during trial and not at the stage of quashing. 11. Very recently, 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 reiterated the aforesaid principles and further held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS), the High Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact or evaluate the evidentiary worth of the material collected during investigation. The Court reaffirmed the test laid down in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor and observed that criminal proceedings can be quashed at the threshold only when the material relied upon by the accused is of sterling and impeccable quality, completely demolishes the prosecution case, remains incapable of being refuted by the prosecution, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. Unless all these parameters are cumulatively satisfied, the High Court ought not to interfere in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, leaving the parties to establish their respective cases before the trial Court in accordance with law. 12. In the present case, the investigation has culminated in submission of the charge-sheet; cognizance has been taken by the competent Magistrate; and charges have already been framed after consideration of the material collected during investigation. 9 The defence sought to be raised by the Petitioners that the prosecution is actuated by malice owing to the earlier encroachment proceedings raises disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence. Such issues cannot be adjudicated in proceedings invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations made in the First Information Report, read along with the material collected during investigation, disclose a prima facie case for proceeding against the Petitioners. The Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the continuation of the criminal proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of law or that the case falls within the exceptional categories warranting interference under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 14. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not influence the trial Court while deciding the case on its own merits and in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra