1 CGHC010270882026 2026:CGHC:31836-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1905 of 2026 Bramhanand Sahu S/o Bhagirathi Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Parsada Post Office Bharri, Police Station, Sakri, District Bilaspur C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Home Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa, Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2. Superintendent of Police Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G. 3. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G. 4. Jagatram Sahu S/o Dhaniram Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Parsada Post Office Bharri, Police Station Sakri District Bilaspur C.G. 5. Kailash Vastrakar R/o Village Parsada Post, Office Bharri, Police Station Sakri , District Bilaspur C.G. 6. Mohan Patel R/o Village Parsada, Post Office Bharri, Police Station Sakri District Bilaspur C.G. 7. Dhannu Kaushik R/o Village Parsada Post Office Bharri Police Station Sakri District Bilaspur C.G. ...Non-applicants(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.07.27 19:01:46 +0530 2 For Applicant : Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy 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. Chandrikaditya Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Anusha Naik, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/non-applicants No. 1 to 3. 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 applicant with the following prayers: “a. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records/case diary pertaining to the Crime No. 438 of 2026 of Police Station Sakri, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for perusal of this Hon’ble Court. b. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order to quash the First Information Report bearing Crime No. 438 of 2026 dated 19.05.2026 3 registered at Police Station Sakri, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 324(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the petitioner may kindly be discharged from all the offences, in the interest of justice.” 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned First Information Report bearing Crime No. 438/2026 registered at Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur, for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), and 324(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is wholly false, malicious, and has been lodged with an ulterior motive to harass the applicant. 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the dispute arose on 19.05.2026 when the applicant found excavation of murrum being carried out adjacent to his agricultural land under the authority of non-applicant No. 4. Upon questioning the said excavation, which was likely to narrow the public access road, non-applicant No. 4 became aggressive and assaulted the applicant by striking him on his head with a mobile phone, whereafter non-applicants No. 5, 6, and 7, acting in furtherance of their common intention, also assaulted the applicant with fists and kicks and threatened him with dire consequences. Owing to the assault, the applicant sustained injuries on his head, temple, chest, and back and was immediately admitted to the Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS), Bilaspur, where he underwent medical treatment. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that while the 4 applicant was hospitalized, non-applicant No. 4, taking advantage of the situation, hurriedly lodged the impugned FIR by projecting a false and fabricated version of the incident. Immediately after being discharged from the hospital, the applicant approached the concerned police station and lodged his report, on the basis of which Crime No. 452/2026 came to be registered against non-applicants No. 4 to 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Thus, both the FIRs arise out of the very same occurrence and constitute cross-cases. He further contended that the impugned FIR has been registered only as a counterblast to shield the non-applicants from the criminal liability arising out of the applicant's complaint. The allegations made therein are inherently improbable and do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence by the applicant. Rather, the medical evidence clearly demonstrates that it was the applicant who suffered injuries requiring hospitalization, thereby lending credence to his version of the incident. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant also contended that the police mechanically registered the impugned FIR without conducting any fair or proper inquiry despite the existence of cross-allegations arising from the same incident. Such action reflects complete non-application of mind and has resulted in abuse of the process of law. The continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings would cause serious prejudice and unnecessary harassment to the applicant, who has no criminal antecedents, while serving no legitimate prosecutorial purpose. He further stated that permitting the investigation in the impugned FIR to 5 continue alongside the applicant's cross-case, despite the false and retaliatory nature of the allegations, is likely to result in miscarriage of justice. The criminal process is being misused by the private respondents to create a defensive legal cover against the applicant's complaint and to pressurize him in relation to the dispute. Placing reliance upon the settled principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), learned counsel submits that where the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides, instituted with an ulterior motive, or amount to abuse of the process of law, this Hon'ble Court is empowered to quash such proceedings to secure the ends of justice. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 438/2026 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the impugned First Information Report, on its plain reading, discloses the commission of cognizable offences and, therefore, has rightly been registered. It is submitted that merely because a cross-FIR has also been lodged by the applicant in respect of the same incident, the impugned FIR cannot be termed as false or be quashed at the threshold. It is further submitted that both FIRs arise out of the same occurrence and are presently under investigation. The rival versions put forth by the parties raise disputed questions of fact regarding the genesis of the incident, the identity of the aggressor and the respective roles of the parties, which can only be ascertained upon a fair 6 investigation. At this stage, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, cannot undertake an enquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations or appreciate the evidence. It is, therefore, submitted that no case for interference is made out and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record. 10. It is not in dispute that both the applicant and non-applicant No. 4 have lodged First Information Reports against each other in respect of the same incident dated 19.05.2026. On the report lodged by non- applicant No. 4, the impugned Crime No. 438/2026 has been registered against the applicant, whereas on the report lodged by the applicant, Crime No. 452/2026 has been registered against non-applicants No. 4 to 7. Thus, both the FIRs arise out of the same occurrence and constitute cross-cases. It is also evident from the record that both sides have alleged assault against each other and the investigation in both the cases is still in progress. 11. The principal contention of the applicant is that the impugned FIR is false and has been lodged as a counterblast to the FIR registered at his instance. However, whether the impugned FIR is a retaliatory measure, who was the aggressor, in what manner the incident actually occurred and whether the allegations made by either side are truthful are all disputed questions of fact. Such questions cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS, as determination 7 thereof necessarily requires collection and appreciation of evidence during investigation and, if required, at the subsequent stage before the competent Court. 12. It is well settled that while exercising inherent jurisdiction for quashing an FIR, the Court is not expected to embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations or conduct a meticulous appreciation of the evidence. The Court is only required to examine whether the allegations contained in the FIR, if taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The mere existence of a cross-FIR or a plea that the impugned FIR has been lodged as a counterblast cannot, by itself, constitute a ground for quashing the proceedings when the allegations disclosed therein require investigation. The defence sought to be projected by the applicant is a matter which can be considered by the investigating agency during investigation and, if occasion so arises, by the competent Court at the appropriate stage. 13. A plain reading of the impugned FIR reveals specific allegations against the applicant constituting cognizable offences. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake a comparative evaluation of the rival versions or record a finding as to which party was the aggressor. Since the investigation is still underway, interference by this Court at the threshold would amount to stifling a legitimate investigation. The issues sought to be raised by the applicant are matters of defence which cannot be adjudicated in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of 8 the BNSS. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not fall within the limited parameters governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, for quashing a First Information Report. The allegations contained in the impugned FIR, if accepted on their face value, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences warranting investigation. The plea of the applicant that the impugned FIR is a counterblast to the cross-FIR lodged by him and that the allegations are false are matters which involve disputed questions of fact and cannot be adjudicated at this stage. 15. Consequently, no ground is made out for exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the impugned FIR. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are confined only to the adjudication of the present petition and shall neither influence nor prejudice the investigation in either of the cross-cases, which shall proceed independently and strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan