1 CGHC010256452026 2026:CGHC:28355-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1774 of 2026 1 - Reveshankar Sahu S/o Mr. Kirit Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Sukhripali, P.S. Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Pradeep Rathore S/o Mr. Parmeshwar Rathorre Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Rank, Seepat, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station In Charge Seepat, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dharmjeet Netam S/o Gorelala Netam Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Hardadih, P.S. Seepat, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners : Mr. Yashkarn Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.1 /State : Mr. Saumya Rai, 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 09.07.2026 1 Heard Mr. Yashkarn Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. 2 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the following prayers : ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 “i That this Hon'ble may kindly be pleased allow the present petition preferred by the petitioner under section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). ii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash and Set aside the FIR Registered on 16.04.2026, with FIR Bearing No. 0228, Registered at Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur, 296,115(2) 351(3), 3(5), of the BNS and 3(1),(R),3(1)(S) of The Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (ANNEXURE P/1) iii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash and Set aside the Chargesheet, Bearing No.10/2026, filled on 30/5/2026 under section 296,115(2),351(3), 3(5), of the BNS and 3(1) (R), 3(1) (S) of The Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (ANNEXURE P/2) iv. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash and Set aside the order of cognizance bearing case No. SPL. Case (Atrocity)/20/2026, dated 05.06.2026, passed by the Special Judge Atrocity, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. v. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash and Set aside the order of charge bearing special case No. 20/2026 dated 19.06.2026 passed by the Special Judge SC & ST (PA), Act 1989, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh vi. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present petition. vii. Grant, Cost of the Petition” 3 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners are a clear abuse of the process of law and have been instituted with a mala fide intention of wreaking vengeance and causing undue harassment to the petitioners. It is contended that Petitioner No.1, being an elected representative as Janpad Sadasya of Block No.08, Masturi, District Bilaspur, and Petitioner No.2, being an employee of NTPC, had jointly organized a fifteen- day religious sermon for the local villagers without any discrimination on the basis of caste, creed or community. Learned counsel submits that during the course of the said religious programme, the minor niece of Petitioner No.1, aged about 13 years, was allegedly subjected to eve-teasing and physical assault by Respondent No.2 and his associates, whereupon the sister of Petitioner No.1 intervened to protect the minor child and was also allegedly assaulted. It is submitted that, owing to the said incident, Petitioner No.1 lodged FIR No.0224 dated 15.04.2026 at Police Station Sipat, District Bilaspur against Respondent No.2 and other persons for offences punishable under Sections 75(3), 115(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Learned counsel submits that only after registration of the said FIR, Respondent No.2, as a counterblast and with a view to pressurize the petitioners, lodged the present FIR making vague and general allegations regarding 4 caste-based discrimination and ill-treatment, despite there being no specific overt act attributed to either of the petitioners. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the chronology of events clearly demonstrates that the impugned FIR is an afterthought and a retaliatory action initiated solely to counter the criminal proceedings already lodged by the petitioners. It is argued that the subsequent filing of the FIR by Respondent No.2, immediately after registration of the petitioners' complaint, coupled with the absence of any specific allegation against the petitioners, establishes the malicious intention behind the prosecution. Learned counsel places reliance upon the order dated 15.06.2026 passed by this Court in MCRCA No.799/2026, whereby the anticipatory bail application preferred by Respondent No.2 was rejected, wherein this Court took note of the fact that the FIR lodged by Respondent No.2 was subsequent to the FIR lodged by the petitioners. It is further submitted that the allegations contained in the FIR are omnibus in nature and have been levelled only with the object of maligning the reputation of Petitioner No.1, who is a public representative, and Petitioner No.2, who is employed with NTPC. According to learned counsel, there is no material whatsoever to establish the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offences and continuation of the criminal proceedings would cause serious prejudice and harassment to them. It is, therefore, prayed that the FIR, charge-sheet, order taking cognizance and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom 5 be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of law. 5 Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the present petition is devoid of merit and is not maintainable at this stage, particularly when the investigation has already been completed, charge-sheet has been filed, cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court and charges have also been framed against the petitioners. It is contended that the allegations contained in the FIR, the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation and the material collected by the Investigating Agency prima facie disclose the commission of the alleged offences against the petitioners. Learned State counsel submits that merely because the petitioners had earlier lodged an FIR against Respondent No.2 and other persons, the subsequent FIR lodged by Respondent No.2 cannot be presumed to be false or motivated. Both the complaints relate to separate allegations arising out of the same set of circumstances, and the truthfulness of the respective versions can only be determined after appreciation of evidence during trial. 6 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR lodged by the complainant as well as FIR lodged by the petitioners’ sister against the complainant and others. 7 The law relating to exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing of criminal proceedings is well settled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court 6 in State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal & Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : AIR 1992 SC 604, has laid down the parameters within which the High Court may exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction and has held that such power is required to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intention. Similarly, in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Others, (2021) 19 SCC 401, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 BNSS), should not conduct a mini trial or enter into the merits of the allegations and the defence of the accused. 8 In the present case, the petitioners have primarily challenged the criminal proceedings on the ground that the FIR lodged by Respondent No.2 is a counterblast to the earlier FIR lodged by Petitioner No.1 against Respondent No.2 and other persons regarding the alleged incident involving the minor niece of Petitioner No.1. It is also contended that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners and that the FIR has been lodged with an ulterior motive to harass and malign them. However, the fact remains that Respondent No.2 has also levelled allegations against the petitioners, pursuant to which the police conducted investigation, collected material, filed the charge-sheet 7 and the learned trial Court has taken cognizance and framed charges against the petitioners. 9 The contention of the petitioners that the FIR is motivated or has been lodged as a retaliatory measure cannot be examined at this stage, as the same requires appreciation of evidence. The existence of a previous FIR lodged by the petitioners against Respondent No.2 cannot, by itself, be a ground to discard the subsequent FIR lodged by Respondent No.2. In a case involving rival allegations, commonly described as a case and counter- case, the respective versions of both sides are required to be tested on the basis of evidence led before the trial Court. 10 Accordingly, this Court finds that the allegations against the petitioners cannot be termed as inherently improbable or absurd, nor can it be said at this stage that the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide. The defence raised by the petitioners would be available to them before the learned trial Court during the course of trial. 11 In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not fall within any of the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing of criminal proceedings. The allegations involve disputed questions of fact which require adjudication during trial. 12 Consequently, the petition filed under Section 528 BNSS being devoid of merit is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the 8 observations made herein are confined only to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not prejudice the case of either party during the course of trial. The learned trial Court shall proceed with the matter independently and decide the same strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made in this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra