1 CGHC010267662026 2026:CGHC:31840-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1916 of 2026 Goutam Singh Chandrakar Shri Atmaram Chandrakar Aged About 49 Years R/o Judicial Employees Colony, Nagar Panchayat Bhatgaon, Thana- Bhatgaon, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (Cg) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (Cg) 2. Station House Officer Police Station - Bhatgaon, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (Cg) 3. Xyz (Details Kept In Sealed Envelope) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 27.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 & 2. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.07.27 19:01:46 +0530 2 2. Although the present petition was listed today for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, it was taken up for final hearing and is being finally disposed of at the admission stage itself. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It, is therefore, prayed that the petition may kindly be allowed and the charge-sheet including FIR of Crime No. 194 of 2025 registered at P.S. Bhatgaon, Distt. Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 75(2), 331(4) of BNS, 2023 dated 29.12.2025 and the proceedings as well as order taking cognizance dated 02.06.2026 passed in session trial No. 21 of 2026 by learned First Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Session Judge Sarangarh may kindly be quashed, in the interest of justice.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is serving as Nayab Nazir, Head Copyist and Process Writer in the Court of JMFC, Bhatgaon, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.), whereas the husband of respondent No. 3/complainant, namely Vidyadhar Patel, was working as a Peon in the same establishment. Owing to serious misconduct committed by Vidyadhar Patel in the discharge of his official duties, the petitioner submitted a written complaint before the competent authority. Pursuant thereto, a departmental enquiry was initiated and the District & Sessions Judge issued a memorandum seeking his explanation. Ultimately, after completion of the enquiry, Vidyadhar Patel was removed from service. It is submitted that the present criminal case is nothing but a retaliatory measure instituted to wreak vengeance against the petitioner 3 because he had set the departmental proceedings in motion. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the written complaint lodged by respondent No. 3 alleges that on the intervening night of 28/29.12.2025, at about 1:25 a.m., the petitioner allegedly trespassed into her house and outraged her modesty. However, despite the alleged occurrence having taken place in the Judicial Employees' Colony, where several court employees reside, the FIR came to be lodged only on the evening of 29.12.2025 after an unexplained delay of about 17 hours. No immediate report was made to the neighbours or any independent person, thereby rendering the prosecution story highly doubtful. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that solely on the basis of the complaint, the police registered an offence under Sections 75(2) and 331(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The petitioner, immediately upon learning of the registration of the crime, approached the departmental authorities and also sought protection from the Court. This Hon'ble Court was pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner on 14.01.2026 in MCRCA No. 78 of 2026. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer, without conducting a fair and impartial investigation and without collecting any independent or corroborative evidence, filed the charge- sheet merely on the basis of the statements of the complainant and her family members. He further contended that the petitioner is a person suffering from 50% permanent locomotor disability and has been undergoing continuous medical treatment. The prosecution has completely ignored this relevant circumstance while mechanically proceeding against him. The allegation that the petitioner committed the alleged offence is 4 wholly improbable in the facts and circumstances of the case and has been levelled only with the object of falsely implicating him. 7. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sequence of events unmistakably demonstrates that the complaint lodged by respondent No. 3 is a direct consequence of the departmental action initiated against her husband at the instance of the petitioner. The departmental enquiry culminated in the termination of Vidyadhar Patel from service, thereby establishing the existence of strong personal animosity and furnishing a clear motive for falsely implicating the petitioner in a serious criminal case. He also stated that even if the entire prosecution case is accepted at its face value, the materials collected during investigation do not disclose sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner. The prosecution case rests entirely upon interested witnesses without any independent corroboration, and the investigation suffers from serious infirmities. The continuation of the criminal proceedings, therefore, would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 8. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present case is squarely covered by the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble Court governing discharge and quashing of criminal proceedings where the prosecution is manifestly attended with mala fides and instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance. Accordingly, the petitioner deserves to be discharged and the proceedings pending against him are liable to be quashed. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the FIR as well as the charge-sheet disclose the 5 commission of cognizable offences punishable under Sections 75(2) and 331(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It is contended that during investigation, the statements of the complainant, her son and other witnesses were recorded, including the statement of the complainant under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’). Upon due investigation, sufficient material was found against the petitioner and, accordingly, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. It is further submitted that the plea of false implication on account of departmental proceedings against the complainant's husband, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the disability of the petitioner are all matters of defence, which cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge- sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS). 6 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 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, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has authoritatively settled the scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the BNSS). The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the power to quash criminal proceedings is required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the rarest of rare cases. It has been categorically observed that while considering a prayer for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR, nor can it appreciate the evidence or conduct a mini trial. The Court is only required to examine whether the allegations, if taken at their 7 face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court further emphasized that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the threshold, that investigation into cognizable offences should ordinarily be permitted to proceed unhindered, and that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with great caution and self-restraint, save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in manifest miscarriage of justice. 14. Very 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 further held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS), the High Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact or evaluate the evidentiary worth of the material collected during investigation. The Court reaffirmed the test laid down in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor and observed that criminal proceedings can be quashed at the threshold only when the material relied upon by the accused is of sterling and impeccable quality, completely demolishes the prosecution case, remains incapable of being refuted by the prosecution, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. Unless all these parameters are cumulatively satisfied, the High Court ought not to interfere in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, leaving the parties to establish their respective cases before the trial Court in accordance with law. 15. In the present case, a perusal of the FIR, the charge-sheet and the material collected during investigation would reveal that respondent No.3 8 has made specific allegations that on the intervening night of 28/29.12.2025, at about 1:25 a.m., the petitioner trespassed into her house and outraged her modesty by touching her body and pressing her breast with sexual intent. The statements of the complainant, her son and other witnesses were recorded during investigation and the statement of the complainant was also recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer found sufficient material to prosecute the petitioner and accordingly submitted the charge- sheet before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatgaon on 07.03.2026. Thereafter, by order dated 13.05.2026, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where it is presently pending for consideration of charge. 16. The principal grounds urged by the petitioner are that the complaint has been lodged as a counterblast to the departmental proceedings initiated against the complainant's husband at the instance of the petitioner; that there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR; that no independent witness has supported the prosecution case; that the petitioner is suffering from 50% permanent locomotor disability; and that the prosecution has been launched with an ulterior motive to wreak personal vengeance after the termination of the complainant's husband from service. All these pleas constitute the defence of the petitioner and involve disputed questions of fact, which require appreciation of evidence and cannot be adjudicated while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 17. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake a meticulous examination 9 of the evidence or record findings regarding the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made by the complainant. The defence projected by the petitioner regarding false implication, departmental rivalry, delay in lodging the FIR and absence of independent corroboration can be effectively examined only during the course of trial after the parties adduce their respective evidence. The mere existence of a defence or a rival version of the incident cannot constitute a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings when the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during investigation prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences. 18. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika (supra) and Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not fall within the exceptional category warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. The allegations made in the FIR, supported by the statements recorded during investigation, cannot be said to be so absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person could conclude that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. The grounds raised by the petitioner require adjudication on evidence and are matters to be decided by the learned trial Court during the course of trial. 19. Consequently, this Court does not find any ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the observations recorded herein are confined only to the adjudication 10 of the present petition and shall not prejudice or influence the learned trial Court while deciding the Sessions Trial on its own merits and strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan