1 CGHC010275862026 2026:CGHC:30545-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1861 of 2026 Akash Kumar Dahariya S/o Vijay Kumar, Aged About 26 Years R/o House No. L I G 243, Sector- 3, Mangla Road, Near Shiv Mandir Deendayal Awas Colony, Mangla, Tah. And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Inspector General of Police Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Superintendent of Police Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Station House Officer, Police Station - Civil Lines, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Jhangal Singh S/o Ganesh Ram, Aged About 27 Years R/o Ashok Nagar Sarkanda, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) At Present R/o Deendayal Colony, Mangla, Tah. And Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Wasim Miyan, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 4 : Ms. Megha Mishra, Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.07.20 17:25:22 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 20.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Wasim Miyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3 and Ms. Megha Mishra, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 4. 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 the FIR registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur (C.G.) in connection with Crime No. 275 of 2026, for the offence under Section 317(5), 318(4) and 3(5) of BNS, and may set free the petitioner from the aforesaid charges, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR has been registered on the basis of false, concocted and fabricated allegations and that, even if the allegations contained in the FIR are taken at their face value, they do not prima facie disclose the commission of any cognizable offence against the petitioner. It is 3 submitted that the entire prosecution story has been artificially developed only with a view to falsely implicate the petitioner in the present case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the complainant himself has subsequently executed a sworn affidavit dated 27.02.2026 categorically stating that he had never lodged the complaint voluntarily against the petitioner. It is contended that, as per the said affidavit, on 23.02.2026 the complainant was forcibly taken by certain officials of the Cyber Branch to their office, where he was threatened with false implication in criminal cases, intimidated and compelled to sign documents prepared by the police authorities. The complainant has specifically asserted that the allegations against the petitioner were fabricated by the concerned Cyber Branch officials and that his signatures were obtained under coercion. It is further stated therein that he neither knows nor has any acquaintance or dealings with the petitioner and that the FIR came to be registered solely on account of pressure and intimidation exercised by the police authorities. Thus, according to the petitioner, the complainant has completely retracted from the allegations forming the basis of the impugned FIR, thereby rendering the prosecution case wholly unreliable and devoid of any legal foundation. 5. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid affidavit of the complainant completely demolishes the substratum of the prosecution case, inasmuch as the very informant has 4 disowned the allegations made in the First Information Report and has asserted that the same were made involuntarily. In such circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law and would result in manifest injustice. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that immediately upon acquiring knowledge of the registration of the impugned FIR, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions by filing an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail. During the consideration of the said application, the complainant appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, and expressly stated that he had no objection if anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the stand taken by the complainant, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner by order dated 08.04.2026. 7. It is, therefore, submitted that the subsequent conduct of the complainant, his categorical affidavit disowning the allegations contained in the FIR, and the fact that he did not oppose the grant of anticipatory bail clearly establish that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner are without any factual or legal basis. It is contended that the impugned FIR does not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioner and that permitting the investigation and 5 further proceedings to continue would constitute an abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR disclose the commission of cognizable offences and, therefore, the investigation has rightly been set into motion. It is submitted that the subsequent affidavit relied upon by the petitioner is a matter requiring thorough investigation and its genuineness, voluntariness and evidentiary value cannot be examined by this Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. He further submits that the complainant's subsequent retraction cannot, by itself, efface the allegations contained in the FIR or nullify the criminal investigation, particularly when the allegations pertain to misuse of the complainant's identity documents, bank account and SIM card for carrying out illegal financial transactions. It is contended that the truthfulness of the rival versions can only be ascertained during the course of investigation and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 10. A perusal of the impugned FIR reveals that the complainant alleged that he was induced by the petitioner on the pretext of providing employment in an establishment namely "Rishtey Point" situated at 6 Nehru Nagar. According to the complainant, after obtaining photocopies of his Aadhaar Card and PAN Card, the petitioner got an account opened in his name with AU Small Finance Bank, obtained a mobile SIM in his name linked with the said account and retained the account documents, cheque book and SIM card with himself on the assurance that the salary and office transactions would be routed through the said account. It is further alleged that subsequently the complainant came to know through the Cyber Cell that the said bank account had been used for cyber fraud and illegal financial transactions involving substantial amounts and that a proprietorship concern in the name of "Rishtey Point" had also been registered in his name without his knowledge or consent. On the basis of these allegations, the impugned FIR came to be registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 317(5) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the investigation is presently in progress. 11. 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. 7 12. 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 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. 13. 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 8 be scuttled at the threshold except in exceptional circumstances. 14. 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 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. 15. Examining the facts of the present case in the light of the aforesaid principles, the principal contention of the petitioner is that the impugned FIR is founded upon false allegations and that the complainant himself has subsequently retracted from the allegations by executing an affidavit stating that the FIR was lodged under coercion exerted by certain officials of the Cyber Branch. The petitioner has also placed reliance upon the fact that the complainant did not oppose the grant of anticipatory bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. These submissions undoubtedly constitute the defence of the petitioner. Whether the subsequent affidavit was voluntarily executed, whether the allegations contained in the FIR or those made in the subsequent affidavit represent the true version of events, and whether the 9 complainant was actually subjected to coercion by the investigating agency are all disputed questions of fact which necessarily require investigation and appreciation of evidence. Such disputed factual issues cannot be adjudicated by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 16. 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 allegations in the FIR specifically attribute to the petitioner acts of inducing the complainant to part with his identity documents, obtaining a bank account and mobile connection in his name, retaining control over the said account and SIM card, and allegedly using the same for illegal financial transactions involving cyber fraud. These allegations, on their plain reading, prima facie disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged. The defence sought to be raised by the petitioner on the strength of the subsequent affidavit cannot be examined at this stage, as doing so would require this Court to evaluate the correctness and evidentiary value of rival versions, which is impermissible in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. 17. It is also well settled that a subsequent retraction or affidavit by the informant does not, by itself, render the FIR liable to be quashed, particularly where the allegations disclose cognizable offences requiring investigation. The question whether such affidavit is genuine, voluntary or has been executed under any influence is itself a matter to be 10 examined during investigation or trial. Likewise, the order granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner neither amounts to an adjudication on the merits of the allegations nor can it be construed as a finding that no offence is made out. An order granting anticipatory bail merely protects the liberty of the accused during investigation and cannot constitute a valid ground for quashing the FIR. 18. 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 sought to be projected by the petitioner revolve around disputed questions of fact, the veracity of which can only be determined upon completion of investigation and, if necessary, during trial. 19. 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. 20. It is, however, made clear that the observations made hereinabove are confined only to the adjudication of the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, and shall not be construed as an expression 11 of opinion on the merits of the case. The investigating agency shall proceed with the investigation strictly in accordance with law, independently and uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. It is further observed that all questions of fact and law are left open to be considered at the appropriate stage in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan