1 CGHC010259922026 2026:CGHC:28350-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1762 of 2026 Chandrabhan Khalkho S/o Ramesh Lal Khalkho Aged About 36 Years R/o Gram Pandariya P.S. Pendra District - Gaurella Pendra Marwahi (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Home Department Chhattisgarh, 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station Pendra District- Gaurella Pendra Marwahi (C.G.) 3. Mahesh Urao S/o Late Janohar Urao Aged About 65 Years R/o Gram Pandariya P.S. Pendra District-Gaurella Pendra Marwahi (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Anand Bajaj, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.07.09 18:33:32 +0530 2 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. Anand Bajaj, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 & 2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash FIR No. 137 of 2026 dated 06.05.2026 registered at Police Station Pendra, District Gaurella-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) for offences under Sections 115(2), 296 and 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 along with charge-sheet No. 95 of 2026 dated 19.05.2026, also quashing of the cognizance taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pendra Road, District Gaurella- Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) vide order dated 05.06.2026 in Criminal Case No. 1710 of 2026, as well as the further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 171 of 2026 for offences under Sections 115(2), 296 and 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending before the 3 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pendra Road, District Gaurella-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.), in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR is a counterblast to FIR No.133/2026 dated 04.05.2026, which had already been lodged by the petitioner against respondent No.3 and his wife in respect of the same incident. It is submitted that on account of a dispute relating to fallen tree wood after a storm, respondent No.3 and his wife assaulted the petitioner with sticks, causing injuries on his head and other parts of the body. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner lodged the earlier FIR, whereas respondent No.3, with an ulterior motive to pressurize the petitioner and create a defence in the earlier case, lodged the impugned FIR after two days by making false and exaggerated allegations. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner himself sustained injuries, which are supported by medical records, whereas the medical examination of respondent No.3 revealed only simple injuries. It is contended that despite the retaliatory nature of the complaint and the surrounding circumstances, the investigating agency conducted the investigation in a mechanical manner, arrested the petitioner, and filed the charge sheet without properly appreciating the true facts of the case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate also took cognizance mechanically 4 without considering that the impugned prosecution is manifestly attended with mala fide intention and has been instituted only to wreak vengeance and harass the petitioner. According to learned counsel, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice. It is, therefore, prayed that this Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) and quash the impugned FIR, charge sheet, cognizance order and all consequential criminal proceedings. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the impugned FIR discloses the commission of cognizable offences and, after due investigation, sufficient material was collected against the petitioner. Upon completion of investigation, the investigating agency filed charge-sheet No. 95/2026 dated 19.05.2026, whereafter the learned trial Court, on being satisfied that a prima facie case was made out, took cognizance of the offences. 7. Learned State counsel further submits that the plea of the petitioner that the impugned FIR is a counterblast to the earlier FIR involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. It is further submitted that after filing of the charge sheet, the case was listed before the learned trial Court on 07.07.2026 for consideration on the question of framing of charge. However, the petitioner failed to appear before the learned trial Court and instead filed an application under Section 355 of the BNSS. 5 In these circumstances, it is submitted that the petitioner has deliberately avoided participating in the trial proceedings and has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court only to delay the progress of the trial. It is, therefore, prayed that the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the material placed on record. 9. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS). 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Supreme Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not 6 constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 11. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has authoritatively settled the scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the BNSS). The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the power to quash criminal proceedings is required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the rarest of rare cases. It has been categorically observed that while considering a prayer for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR, nor can it appreciate the evidence or conduct a mini trial. The Court is only required to examine whether the allegations, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court further emphasized that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the threshold, that investigation into cognizable offences should ordinarily be permitted to proceed unhindered, and that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with great caution and self- 7 restraint, save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in manifest miscarriage of justice. 12. 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. 13. A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that the complainant, Mahesh Singh, alleged that on 04.05.2026 at about 7:00 a.m., while he was collecting a broken branch of a Sal (Sarai) tree lying near his house after a storm, the petitioner, Chandrabhan Khalkho, reached the spot, claimed ownership over the tree, abused him in filthy language, 8 threatened him with dire consequences, and assaulted him with a wooden stick, causing injuries near his eyebrow. It is further alleged that when the complainant's wife, Leelabai, intervened to rescue him, she was also assaulted with a wooden stick, resulting in injuries to her legs and waist. The incident was stated to have been witnessed by Preeti Urao, Rajaram Urao and Rajkumar. The investigation culminated in recording the statements of the witnesses, conducting spot inspection, and obtaining the medical examination report, which disclosed simple injuries. Upon finding sufficient material against the petitioner, the investigating agency filed Charge Sheet No.95/2026 dated 19.05.2026, whereupon the learned trial Court took cognizance of the offences. 14. Having bestowed anxious consideration to the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. A plain reading of the impugned FIR and the material collected during investigation, as reflected in the charge sheet, prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offences against the petitioner. The investigating agency, after recording the statements of the witnesses, conducting spot inspection and obtaining the medical examination reports of the injured persons, found sufficient material to file the charge sheet, whereupon the learned trial Court took cognizance of the offences. 15. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the impugned FIR is a counterblast to the earlier FIR lodged by him in respect of the same 9 incident. However, merely because there are cross versions or rival FIRs arising out of the same occurrence, the same by itself cannot be a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings. The plea raised by the petitioner involves disputed questions of fact as to which party was the aggressor, whether the petitioner acted in self-defence and which version of the incident is truthful. These are matters requiring appreciation of evidence and can only be adjudicated during the course of trial. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, this Court cannot undertake such an exercise. 16. Likewise, the contention of the petitioner that he had also sustained injuries and that the complainant party suffered only simple injuries constitutes his defence, which cannot be examined at this stage. Similarly, the allegation that the investigation was conducted in a mechanical manner or that the prosecution has been maliciously instituted are matters requiring appreciation of evidence. In view of the settled legal position, this Court cannot enter into the disputed factual controversy or evaluate the evidentiary worth of the material collected during investigation while exercising its inherent jurisdiction. 17. It is also pertinent to note that after submission of the charge sheet and taking of cognizance, the case was listed before the learned trial Court on 07.07.2026 for consideration on the question of framing of charge. However, the petitioner did not appear before the learned trial Court and filed an application under Section 355 of the BNSS. Instead of participating in the proceedings before the learned trial Court, the 10 petitioner has approached this Court by invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings. 18. In the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika (supra), Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra) and the other decisions referred to hereinabove, this Court is satisfied that the allegations contained in the impugned FIR and the material collected during investigation disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner. None of the well-recognized parameters warranting interference under Section 528 of the BNSS are attracted in the facts of the present case. The contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner can appropriately be examined by the learned trial Court during the course of trial. 19. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein are confined only to the adjudication of the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 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 Brijmohan