1 2026:CGHC:27162-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1667 of 2026 1 - Ramayan Prasad Yadav S/o Narottam Yadav Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Khaira Police Station Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Narottam Yadav S/o Late Bhagirathi Yadav Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Khaira Police Station Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station A J A K, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Alina Rai D/o Vedprakash Rai Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Amora Police Station Akaltara, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. G.A. 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. P. Chetan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State/ Respondent. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.07.03 10:58:46 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has filed the present CrMP under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023, and prayed for the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the charges dated 06.05.2026 for the offences under Sections 296 (three times), 351(2) (three times) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 framed by the learned Special Judge under S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (SC/ST Act) No. 12/2026 and cognizance taken dated 12.03.2026, and further be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No. 01/2026 dated 05.01.2026 registered at Police Station AJAK, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 296, 351(2) 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Final Report No. 06/2026 dated 04.03.2026 filed for the offence under Sections 296, 351(2) 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in the interest of justice.” 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, a Class XII student, lodged an FIR on 05.01.2026 alleging that she had earlier been subjected to sexual harassment and criminal intimidation by her 3 school's sports teacher, following which a separate criminal case was registered against him. It is further alleged that on the same day, when the complainant and her parents were returning from the court after opposing the teacher's bail application, the present petitioners, who are the father and brother of the said accused, wrongfully restrained them, abused them by taking the name of their caste, and threatened them with dire consequences if they did not withdraw the case. On the basis of the said complaint, Crime No. 01/2026 was registered at Police Station AJAK, District Janjgir-Champa, under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Upon completion of investigation, a final report was filed, cognizance was taken on 12.03.2026, and charges were framed against the petitioners on 06.05.2026. The petitioners' application for discharge under Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed prior to framing of charges, has not yet been decided. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the impugned order dated 06.05.2026 framing charges is wholly illegal and unsustainable, as the learned Trial Court proceeded to frame charges without first deciding the petitioners' pending discharge application filed under Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the petitioners were not present at the alleged place of occurrence and have been falsely implicated due to their relationship with the principal accused in the earlier case. Even if the allegations contained in the FIR and charge-sheet are accepted in their entirety, the essential 4 ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 296 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not made out. There is no specific allegation of intentional caste-based insult in a place within public view, nor is there any allegation of criminal force or physical contact or any threat of the nature contemplated under the relevant provisions of the BNS. The prosecution has failed to place any material to prima facie establish the commission of the alleged offences, while the petitioners' plea of alibi has been completely ignored. In such circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of law and warrants interference by this Court by quashing the impugned order framing charges as well as the consequential criminal proceedings. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that, in compliance of the court’s order dated 30.06.2026, learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Janjgir has submitted her report and the same is taken on record. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. In compliance with the order dated 30.06.2026 passed by this Court, the learned Trial Court has submitted its report stating that the petitioners' application dated 15.04.2026 filed under Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 remained undecided inadvertently and, due to such inadvertence, charges came to be framed against the petitioners on 06.05.2026. The report further states 5 that after the order dated 27.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CRA No. 997/2026 granting bail to petitioner No.1/ Ramayan Prasad, wherein an observation was made for expeditious conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court proceeded with the matter and framed the charges. 8. Having considered the explanation furnished by the learned Trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that every criminal court is expected to decide all pending applications, particularly an application seeking discharge, in accordance with law before proceeding to frame charges. The explanation furnished by the learned Trial Court for not deciding the discharge application before framing charges does not appear to be satisfactory. Such procedural lapses have the potential to prejudice the valuable rights of an accused, as in the present case the petitioners were constrained to approach this Court after charges had been framed without adjudication of their pending discharge application. 9. In view of the aforesaid, although this Court does not approve the procedural lapse committed by the learned Trial Court in framing charges without first deciding the discharge application, no prejudice warranting interference by this Court is ultimately made out, as an independent consideration of the discharge application demonstrates that it does not disclose any legal ground warranting discharge of the petitioners and the pleas raised therein are matters to be adjudicated during trial. 10. Consequently, finding no merit in the present petition, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 6 11. It is, however, observed that the learned Trial Court shall remain vigilant in future and ensure that all pending applications are decided in accordance with law before proceeding further with the trial because such applications may affect the legal rights of the parties. 12. The petitioners shall be at liberty to lead their evidence and raise all legally permissible defences before the learned Trial Court, which shall consider the same independently and decide the case in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika