1 2026:CGHC:7787-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2787 of 2024 1 - Suman Yadav D/o Nihar Sai Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Sindhi Colony, Mandir Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), Permanent Address - Dipka, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 2 - Indu Chandra D/o Hemlal Chandra Aged About 26 Years R/o Sindhi Colony, Mandir Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Nand Rathor S/o Dilip Rathor Aged About 27 Years R/o Ganesh Vihar, Uslapur, P.S. Sakri, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Mohammed Islam S/o Mohammed Nasim Aged About 28 Years R/o Ganesh Vihar, Uslapur, P.S. Sakri, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Rahul Jaiswal S/o Ramkumar Jiaswal Aged About 26 Years R/o Ganesh Vihar, Uslapur, P.S. Sakri, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Sirgitti, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Director General Of Police Police Headquarters, Police Department, Atal Nagar - Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Jashwant Kumar S/o Shri Shankar Lal Aged About 28 Years R/o Near D.P. Law College, Ashok Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.02.13 17:09:01 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Syed Ishhadil Ali, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, and Mr. Abhishek Choubey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12/02/2026 1. Heard Mr. Syed Ishhadil Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, appearing for Respondent/State, Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, and Mr. Abhishek Choubey, learned counsel for the Respondent No.4. 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking quashing of the F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 624 of 2024, registered at Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 3(5) and 304(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and they prayed for the following relief: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quash F.I.R. bearing crime no. 624/2024 for the offences punishable U/s 115(2), 296, 3(5), 304(1), of B.N.S. 2023 at P.S.-Sirgitti, Bilaspur Dist: Bilaspur (C.G.)” 3 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 06.09.2024 at about 12:00 midnight, near Gramin Bank, Tifra, Bilaspur, Respondent No. 4 was returning from Sahu Dhaba along with his friend in his car bearing registration No. CG-12 AJ 6884 (Swift Dzire). It is alleged that the riders of activa scooty bearing registration Nos. CG-12 BJ 0217 and CG-12 BC 9348 intercepted him, abused him in filthy language, assaulted him, and snatched his gold chain. The incident was reported by Respondent No. 4 on the next day, i.e., 07.09.2024 at about 1:00 PM, at Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur. On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 624/2024 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 3(5) and 304(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the riders of the aforesaid vehicles, namely applicant Nos. 1 and 2, and the other petitioners, who are stated to be their friends. Aggrieved by the registration of the said FIR, the said FIR is under challenge in the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that even if the allegations made in the impugned FIR are taken at their face value, no prima facie offence is made out against the present petitioners and the same appears to be a counterblast to the incident which actually occurred on the intervening night of 06.09.2024. It is contended that there is an unexplained delay of about 13 hours in lodging the FIR by Respondent No. 4, who claims himself to be an advocate, and no material has been collected by the prosecution to connect the petitioners with the alleged offences. On the contrary, the true facts reveal that when applicant Nos. 1 and 2 were returning after dinner, 4 they were wrongfully restrained and misbehaved with by respondent No. 4 and his companions, whereupon applicant No. 5 immediately informed the police on emergency number 112, and supporting documents in this regard have been annexed with the petition. It is further submitted that applicant No. 2 also made a complaint through the Abhivyakti App and subsequently submitted written complaints to the concerned authorities, however, no action was taken and instead the petitioners were falsely implicated in the present crime, compelling them to seek anticipatory bail, which was granted by the learned Sessions Court. Learned counsel argues that the CCTV footage also supports the version of the petitioners and that the continuation of the criminal proceedings, based on a false and fabricated FIR, would cause irreparable injury to the petitioners, who are young students preparing for competitive examinations, and would seriously jeopardize their future career prospects, therefore, the impugned FIR registered against the present petitioners is liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State- respondents submits that the present petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing of FIR bearing Crime No. 624/2024 is not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended that the FIR discloses the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 115(2), 296, 395 and 304(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and therefore its registration was mandatory in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. It is further submitted that during investigation, the 5 statements of the complainant were recorded, medical examination was conducted, spot map was prepared, CCTV footage was seized, and material collected prima facie shows the involvement of the accused persons, including the presence of applicant Nos. 1 and 2 at the time of the incident. The investigation has resulted in filing of the charge-sheet, and the allegations have been duly corroborated by the material collected by the Investigating Officer. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), it is argued that when the FIR prima facie discloses commission of an offence, this Hon’ble Court should not interfere or stifle the prosecution at the threshold by exercising its inherent jurisdiction. The accused persons have an efficacious alternative remedy to raise all permissible defenses at the stage of framing of charge or by seeking discharge before the competent court. Hence, the petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4 submits that the present petition is devoid of merit and not maintainable in law, inasmuch as the impugned FIR prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offences and the investigation has culminated in filing of the charge- sheet before the competent Court. The grounds urged by the petitioners pertain to disputed questions of fact and appreciation of evidence, which cannot be gone into while exercising inherent jurisdiction. The petitioners have an efficacious statutory remedy to raise all permissible pleas before the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage. Hence, no case for interference is made out and the petition deserves to be 6 dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Sharma and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2016) 9 SCC 1 held as under:- “35. While discussing the scope and ambit of Section482 of the Code, a similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Kal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 wherein it was held as under:- “29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the 7 necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC: 30.1 Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2 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? 30.3 Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4 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? 30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a 8 trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case at hand warrants exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The allegations contained in the impugned FIR, even if taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, do not prima facie disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the present petitioners. The attendant circumstances, including the delay in lodging the FIR, the prior complaints made by the petitioners, and the material placed on record, cast serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story. In such a situation, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and would not serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. 10. Accordingly, the FIR bearing Crime No. 624 of 2024, registered at Police Station Sirgitti, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur for the offence under Section 115(2), 296, 3(5), 304(1), of BNS, 2023 with respect to the petitioner No.1 Suman Yadav, No. 2 Indu Chandra, No.3 Nand Rathor, No.4 Mohammed Islam and No.5 Rahul Jaiswal are hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok