1 CGHC010253492026 2026:CGHC:28834-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 380 of 2026 1 - Akash Sharma S/o Shri Mahaveer Sharma Aged About 38 Years R/o Bazar Mohalla, Katghora P.S. Katghora District- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Station House Officer, Police Station Katghora District- Korba Chhattisgarh 3 - The Superintendent Of Police, Korba District- Korba Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Nirmala Rajput W/o Jaswant Singh Jaat Aged About 45 Years R/o 34-3 Bankimongra, Korba District- Korba (C.G.) (Complainant) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailendra Dubey, Senior Advocate and Mr. Rohan Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anusha Naik, 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 10/07/2026 1. Heard Mr. Shailendra Dubey, Senior Advocate, and Mr. Rohan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Anusha Naik, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, appearing for the Respondent/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.07.14 18:46:24 +0530 2 prayer: "10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court be kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction to quash/set-aside impugned FIR No. 52/2021 dated 20.02.2021 registered before Police Station Katghora,District-Korba, Chhattisgarh for allegedly committing offence under Sections 306 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court be kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction to grant compensation to the petitioner for mental harassment and loss of reputation. 10.3 Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court including award the cost of the petition” 3. The facts of the case, in brief, is that one Balvinder Singh who was stated to be a habitual consumer of liquor and residing at Bazar Mohalla, Katghora, committed suicide by hanging in his house, and during investigation a suicide note was allegedly recovered wherein the names of the present petitioner and other co-accused persons were mentioned. On the basis thereof, the aforesaid Crime No.52/2021, for the offence under Section 306/34 of IPC was registered against the petitioner and three other accused persons. The petitioner’s anticipatory bail application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 27.07.2021 passed in MCRCA No. 397/2021, and the said order was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 12.08.2021 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 5582/2021. The petitioner had also earlier challenged the said FIR before this Court by filing WP (Cr.) No. 186/2021, which came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 07.12.2021. Against the order dated 07.12.2021 the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (Cr.) No. 9809/2021, in which an interim protection with respect to no coercive steps including arrest was granted vide order dated 11.01.2022. In the meantime, charge-sheet was filed only against the other co-accused persons and, after full-fledged trial, all of them were acquitted by learned trial Court vide judgment dated 3 03.10.2024. Since no charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner in view of the interim protection granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no trial proceeded against him. 4. The SLP (Crl.) No. 9809/2021, came up for hearing before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 06.03.2025, and the same was disposed of on the ground that no charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and the trial proceeded against the other accused persons has resulted in the acquittal of all of them. The petitioner filed a modification application before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was registered as Misc. Application Diary No. 52984/2025, which was also disposed of vide order dated 06.10.2025 as dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate remedies as the petitioner probably has a fresh cause of action. Hence, the present writ petition seeking quashment of the aforesaid FIR of Crime No. 52/2021 registered at Police Station Katghora, District Korba, on account of subsequent change in facts and circumstances. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the present petition has been filed seeking quashment of FIR No. 52/2021 dated 20.02.2021 registered at Police Station Katghora, District Korba, for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC on account of subsequent change in facts and circumstances and in view of the liberty granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 06.10.2025 passed in Misc. Application Diary (S) No. 52984/2025. It is submitted that the earlier writ petition preferred by the petitioner was decided at a stage when neither the trial against the co-accused had concluded nor the evidence of the prosecution witnesses had been tested by the learned trial Court. It is submitted that thereafter, charge-sheet was filed against the other co- accused persons and, upon full-fledged trial, the learned trial Court vide 4 judgment dated 03.10.2024 acquitted all the co-accused persons, namely, Sanjay Yadav, Purnima Yadav and Yashoda Bai Yadav, after holding that the prosecution failed to establish the charge against them. He would submit that the case of the present petitioner arises out of the same FIR, same allegations and same set of evidence, and therefore, once the co-accused persons have been acquitted on merits after appreciation of the prosecution evidence, the petitioner is entitled to claim parity and the FIR against him is liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses examined before the learned trial Court has made any specific allegation against the present petitioner and no incriminating material has come on record to show his involvement in the alleged offence. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that even if the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation are taken at their face value, the same do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC against the petitioner, namely, instigation, intentional aid or active abetment to the commission of suicide. The petitioner was not directly involved in the alleged incident and, at best, was stated to have intervened in the dispute between the parties. It is submitted that no charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner, and in view of the acquittal of the co-accused persons on the very same set of allegations and evidence, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Learned counsel would submit that the subsequent acquittal of the co-accused persons and the liberty granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court constitute a fresh cause of action for the petitioner to approach this Court and, therefore, it is prayed that FIR No. 52/2021 registered at Police Station Katghora, District Korba dated 20.02.2021 and all consequential proceedings arising 5 therefrom, so far as they relate to the present petitioner, be quashed. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that the present petition is not maintainable in law as the petitioner had earlier challenged the very same FIR by filing WP (Cr.) No. 186/2021, which stood dismissed by this Court vide order dated 07.12.2021. Against the order dated 07.12.2021 the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (Crl.) No. 9809/2021, and though the interim protection was granted to the petitioner but ultimately the said SLP was ultimately disposed of vide order dated 06.03.2025, and the modification application has also been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 06.10.2025. There is no adjudication on the merits of the FIR with respect to the petitioner. The FIR is the named FIR in which the petitioner is one of the accused. Due to the interim order dated 11.01.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the charge-sheet was not filed against him, but the FIR against him still survives. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate the same grounds by filing the present petition under the guise of subsequent developments. It is submitted that the FIR as well as the material collected during investigation, including the suicide note allegedly recovered from the place of incident, prima facie disclose the involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence and, at this stage, this Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction would not undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence collected during investigation. Learned counsel would further submit that merely because no charge-sheet has yet been filed against the petitioner or that the petitioner seeks to rely upon subsequent developments in the matter, the same by itself would not render the FIR liable to be quashed, particularly when the allegations levelled in the FIR and the 6 material collected during investigation disclose a prima facie case requiring further proceedings in accordance with law. The petitioner was not participated in the trial which was conducted against three other co-accused persons, therefore, he cannot claim that there is no evidence the petitioner in the case and the FIR against him is liable to be quashed on this ground. It is thus submitted that no case for interference is made out and the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had earlier challenged the very same FIR by filing WP (Cr.) No. 186/2021 and the said writ petition came to be dismissed by learned Singe Judge of this Court vide order dated 07.12.2021. The said order dated 07.12.2021 was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 9808/2021, which was also disposed of vide order dated 06.03.2025 and the modification application has also been disposed of as dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate remedies, as probably the petitioner has a fresh cause of action, vide order dated 06.10.2025. Though the present petition has been filed on the strength of subsequent developments, namely, the acquittal of the co-accused persons and liberty granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to avail appropriate remedy, the same by itself would not ipso facto render the FIR liable to be quashed. The challenge in substance still remains to the same FIR and the same criminal proceedings, and therefore, this Court is required to examine whether the case falls within the settled parameters for quashing of criminal proceedings. 10. In the matter of Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Apex 7 Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.) is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of B.N.S.S.), only has to consider whether or not the allegations of FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. Further, while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (now 528 of B.N.S.S.) , final conclusions are as under:- “i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevantprovisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception 8 rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; 11. x) Save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the 9 allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps” either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/ disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order. xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of “no coercive steps to be adopted” within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by “no coercive steps to be adopted” as the term “no coercive steps to be adopted” can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied.” 12. Very recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar 10 Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025), while reiterating the settled principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings, has once again emphasized that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised with great caution, circumspection and only in exceptional circumstances. 13. The Apex Court has held that while considering a prayer for quashing of an FIR, charge-sheet or criminal proceedings, the Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial or undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence collected during investigation. The scope of judicial scrutiny at such stage is confined to examining whether the allegations made in the FIR, the material collected during investigation and the charge-sheet, if accepted at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and make out a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 of the BNSS), cannot enter into disputed questions of fact, evaluate the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations, assess the evidentiary value of witness statements, or adjudicate upon the probable defence available to the accused. Such an exercise falls squarely within the province of the trial Court, which alone is competent to appreciate evidence after the parties have led their respective cases. The Apex Court cautioned that where the allegations disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences and the investigating agency has collected material in support thereof, criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the threshold merely because the accused has raised a plausible defence or disputes the correctness of the prosecution case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: 11 “20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:- (i)Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality? (ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. (iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted prosecution/complainant; and/or the material that justifiably refuted it cannot be by is by the such, the prosecution/complainant? (iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. [(See: Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013)]” 15. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction for quashing of an FIR, this Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence collected during investigation or to adjudicate upon the correctness or sufficiency of such material. At this stage, the Court is only required to see whether the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence. In the present case, the FIR was registered on the basis of the allegations arising 12 out of the incident in question and during investigation, a suicide note was allegedly recovered in which the name of the present petitioner was also mentioned. In such circumstances, it cannot be said at this stage that no prima facie material exists against the petitioner so as to warrant exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction for quashing of the FIR. 16. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding acquittal of the co-accused persons is concerned, the same, in the opinion of this Court, cannot by itself furnish a ground to quash the FIR as against the present petitioner, particularly when no charge-sheet has been filed against him and he has not faced trial on account of the interim protection granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The effect of acquittal of the co-accused and the plea of parity sought to be raised by the petitioner are matters which may be available to him before the competent Court at the appropriate stage, but the same cannot be made a basis for quashing the FIR at this stage when prima facie material is available on record. The liberty granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to avail appropriate remedy also cannot be construed to mean that the petitioner is entitled to quashing as a matter of right. 17. From perusal of the FIR, statement of the witnesses, namely Tuli Kaur (wife of the deceased), Satvinder Singh (brother of the deceased), Jashwant Singh (brother of the deceased), Smt. Nirmala Rajput alias Pooja (sister-in- law of the deceased) and also the suicide note seized from the spot, there is prima facie sufficient allegation against the petitioner of his involvement in the offence in question. From perusal of the documents annexed with the petition as well as in view of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra), the petitioner fails to make out a case for quashing of the FIR against him. Further, his prayer for quashing of the FIR has already been rejected by 13 the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPCR No. 186/2021 vide order dated 07.12.2021, and the SLP (Crl.) No. 9809/2021, filed by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been disposed of 06.03.2025. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for interference is made out. 18. Accordingly, the present writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok