1 CGHC010263512026 2026:CGHC:30338-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1844 of 2026 1 - Samarth Jaiswal S/o Sanjay Jaiswal Aged About 44 Years R/o Nehru Nagar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Cr/o Pulpara Mungeli, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Suraj Singh S/o Rajesh Thakur Aged About 34 Years R/o Vinoba Nagar, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2 - Bhanu Pratap Barman Posted At Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Shri Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For State : Shri Shashank Thakur, Addl. A.G. and Shri Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi & Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.J. Order on Board 17.07.2026 Per, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J 1 The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief : “It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash, INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.07.20 18:29:43 +0530 2 A. the impugned charge sheet filed by the respondent no. 1 bearing final report No. 116/2026 dated 06.06.2026 in FIR No. 136/2025 dated 14.04.2026 registered in Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, under Section 34(2), 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act 1915; B. the impugned order of taking cognizance dated 06.06.2026 taking cognizance of the final report no. 116/2026 dated 06.06.2026 by Learned JMFC Mungeli under Section 34(2), 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act 1915 against the petitioners; and C. the consequential Criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No 3228 of 2026 before learned JMFC, Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, arising out of Crime No. 136/2025 dated 14.04.2026 registered in Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, under Section 34(2), 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act 1915.” 2 Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner No.1 is running Hotel City Palace (FL-03 Bar) Mungeli and holding valid and subsisting license for dealing in liquor. On 14.04.2026 while the petitioners were proceeded towards Temri-Chakarbhata in their Creta Car bearing Registration No.CG-28-R-9600, the police intercepted them near Raipur Road Bypass, Mungeli, and recovered 24 sealed bottles of Simba Beer (15.600 bulk liters) from the said vehicle. On the basis of said recovery, an FIR was registered against them on 14.04.2026 at Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, for the offence under Sections 34(2) and 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915, leading to take cognizance of the matter on 06.06.2026 and consequential criminal proceeding in Criminal Case No.3228 of 2026 by the jurisdictional trial court. 3 Leaned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegations against the petitioners are wholly untenable. The Bar Licence was 3 validly issued in the name of Hira Singh, who lawfully executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Petitioner No.1 authorizing him to operate and manage the Bar. He would further submit that the present criminal case is a result of mala fide action on the part of the concerned police official respondent No.2-Bhanu Pratap Burman, who was persistently demanding money and supply of liquor from Petitioner No.1. Upon refusal to comply with such illegal demands, they were falsely implicated in the present case. No material exists to establish any unlawful possession or commission of a cognizable offence. Even if the allegations contained in the FIR are accepted in their entirety, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out. These circumstances clearly demonstrate mala fide nature of the prosecution and abuse of the criminal process. Thus, in view of the above facts and circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and therefore, deserves to be quashed. 4 On the other hand, the counsel for the State opposes the submissions and have submitted that there are sufficient material on record which prima facie constitute offence for which the charge has been framed by the trial court which does not require any interference. The defence of petitioners are primarily founded on the plea that Petitioner No.1 was authorized to manage Hotel City Palace (FL-03 Bar) through a Power of Attorney executed by the licensee. Such a defence raises disputed questions of fact which can only be adjudicated during trial upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. The existence of a liquor licence or a Power of Attorney does not, by itself, exonerate the 4 petitioners from complying with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act governing possession, transport and movement of intoxicants. The allegation that respondent No.2 demanded illegal gratification and falsely implicated the petitioners is a bald and unsubstantiated allegation without any supporting material. 5 We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6 Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusals of FIR and material available on record, and the settled principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out for interference at this stage. The admitted facts are that the liquor was recovered by the police from the possession of petitioner i.e. from their Creta Car. The contentions raised by the petitioners regarding validity of the licence, Power of Attorney, the alleged illegal demands by the police officials in the Bar of the petitioner, false implication and other factual disputes are matters requiring appreciation of evidence which cannot be adjudicated in a proceeding seeking quashment FIR. 7 In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Apex 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 5 528 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 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; 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; 6 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 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 7 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.” 8 Very recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar 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. 9 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 8 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. 10 In the present case, the learned Magistrate has already taken cognizance upon consideration of the police report. The prosecution has thus crossed the stage of mere registration of FIR and the matter is pending trial. Interference at this stage would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution and depriving the prosecution of the opportunity to establish its case in accordance with law. The defence put forth by the petitioners and the documents relied upon by them cannot be conclusively evaluated in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The issues raised by the petitioners are matters to be considered during the trial. Thus, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference of this court at this stage. 11 In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Judge inder