1 CGHC010261202026 2026:CGHC:29547-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1817 of 2026 Rajat Soni, S/o- Shri Suresh Kumar Soni, Aged About 31 Years R/o- Patnipura Indore, District- Indore (M.P.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Government Railway Police, Bhilai District- Durg (C.G.) 2. Shri Lokesh Kumar Ratre, S/o- Shri Bheem Singh Ratre, R/o- Gram, Post Tamora Teh- Gundardehi, District- Balod (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Kartik Kathuria, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 14.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Kartik Kathuria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.07.15 10:37:41 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “a. To quash impugned FIR No. 62 of 2025 dated 30.07.2025 registered at Police Station GRP Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) against the petitioner under Section 132 and 221 of the BNS. b. And/or any other relief/reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may pleased be also granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR has been registered on the basis of a written complaint dated 30.07.2025 alleging that on 25.07.2025, while the complainant was posted as a Sorting Assistant at the RMS Counter, Drug Railway Station, an unknown person insisted on booking a parcel after the prescribed booking time, resulting in a verbal altercation. It is alleged that during the said incident, the complainant's clothes and mobile phone were grabbed and an unknown woman shifted a tray containing booked articles outside the counter. On the basis of the said complaint, Crime No. 62/2025 was registered under Sections 132 and 221 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS) against an unknown person. He further submits that the allegations are wholly false and contrary to the actual facts. The petitioner had been waiting at the RMS counter for a considerable time due to the complainant's inaction, which 3 had also caused inconvenience to other members of the public. When the petitioner questioned the delay, other persons present also expressed similar grievances. After the booking time had elapsed, the complainant acknowledged the delay on his part and requested the petitioner to leave the parcel, assuring him that it would be booked the next day. Acting on the said assurance, the petitioner visited the counter on 26.07.2025, and the parcel was duly booked without any objection or dispute. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner that despite having the petitioner's complete identity and Aadhaar details from the parcel booking records, the complainant lodged the FIR after an unexplained delay of five days against an "unknown" person. Thereafter, no action was taken for nearly ten months, and only on 18.05.2026 was a notice issued to the petitioner. Upon receiving the notice, the petitioner came to know of the FIR and approached this Hon'ble Court. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in MCRCA No. 884 of 2026 vide order dated 17.06.2026. he further submitted that the petitioner is a working professional and a student, and because of the false implication, he has lost his employment and his studies have also been adversely affected. 5. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the allegations in the FIR are accepted as they stand, the essential ingredients of Sections 132 and 221 of the BNS are not attracted. The complaint itself shows that the prescribed booking time 4 had already expired, and at best, the incident arose out of a minor consumer-service dispute without any intention to deter or obstruct a public servant in the discharge of his official duties. The unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, registration against an "unknown" person despite knowledge of the petitioner's identity, and the subsequent delay of nearly ten months in issuing notice clearly indicate that the prosecution is an afterthought and amounts to an abuse of the process of law. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the allegations made in the impugned FIR prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences punishable under Sections 132 and 221 of the BNS. It is further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and the contentions raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS'). It is, therefore, prayed that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 8. A perusal of the impugned FIR reveals that the complainant, while posted as a Sorting Assistant at the RMS Counter, Drug Railway Station, alleged that on 25.07.2025, after the prescribed booking time had expired, an unknown person insisted upon booking a parcel, resulting in a verbal altercation. It is further alleged that during the said 5 incident, the complainant's clothes and mobile phone were grabbed and an unknown woman shifted a tray containing booked articles outside the counter. On the basis of the said allegations, the present FIR came to be registered under Sections 132 and 221 of the BNS. The investigation is presently in progress. 9. The legal position governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is well settled. The jurisdiction to quash an FIR is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised sparingly, with great circumspection and only in exceptional cases. Ordinarily, the High Court should not interfere with the investigation of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations contained in the FIR, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie disclose the commission of any offence or continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law, the Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction. 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 Hon’ble 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 constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The 6 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, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 of the BNSS), the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations, appreciate the evidence or conduct a mini trial. The Court is only required to examine whether the allegations contained in the FIR, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court further observed that investigation into cognizable offences should ordinarily be permitted to proceed unhindered and criminal proceedings should not be scuttled at the threshold except in exceptional circumstances. 12. 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 held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, the High Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact or evaluate the evidentiary value of the material collected during investigation. It was further held that criminal proceedings can be 7 quashed only where the material relied upon by the accused is of sterling and impeccable quality, completely demolishes the prosecution case and continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law. 13. Examining the facts of the present case in the light of the aforesaid principles, the principal contention of the petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated due to a consumer-service dispute which arose at the postal counter after the prescribed booking time had expired. It is the petitioner's case that the complainant himself requested him to leave the parcel for booking on the following day and the same was duly booked on 26.07.2025 without any objection. It is further contended that despite having the petitioner's identity through the parcel booking records, the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of five days against an unknown person and notice was issued to the petitioner only after about ten months. These submissions constitute the defence of the petitioner and involve disputed questions of fact which require appreciation of evidence and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. 14. At this stage, this Court is only required to examine whether the allegations contained in the FIR, if accepted at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The correctness or otherwise of the rival versions, including the petitioner's plea of false implication, delay in lodging the FIR and absence of the ingredients of the alleged offences, are all matters which fall within the domain of investigation 8 and cannot be examined by this Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction. 15. Having regard to the allegations contained in the impugned FIR and the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not fall within any of the exceptional categories illustratively carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika (supra) and reiterated in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra), warranting exercise of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. The allegations cannot, at this stage, be said to be so inherently improbable or patently absurd as to warrant quashing of the FIR at the threshold. Rather, the issues raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact which are required to be investigated in accordance with law. 16. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for quashing of the impugned FIR is made out. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 17. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation expeditiously and submit the final police report under Section 193(3) of the BNSS before the competent Court, strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 18. It is made clear that in the event the petitioner is aggrieved by the final report so submitted, he shall be at liberty to avail such remedy as 9 may be available to him in law, including challenging the same before the competent Court. It is further clarified that the observations made herein are confined only to the adjudication of the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS and shall not influence the investigation or the proceedings before the competent Court in any manner. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan