1 CGHC010448112025 2026:CGHC:31973-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3217 of 2025 1 - Deepak Kumar Banjare S/o Shri Vishnu Prasad Banjare Aged About 32 Years 2 - Vishnu Prasad Banjare S/o Shri Bhagwat Banjare Aged About 59 Years 3 - Smt. Sati Bai Banjare W/o Vishnu Prasad Banjare Aged About 53 Years 4 - Shiv Kumar Banjare S/o Vishnu Prasad Banjare Aged About 29 Year All R/o Village- Rasouta, Post- Kosmandi, Tahsil And Police Station - Palari, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Palari, Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Padum Lal Goyal S/o Late Kunj Ram Goyal Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Rasouta, Post- Kosmandi, Tahsil And Police Station - Palari, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Shri Shivbhan Singh Banjare, Advocate. For State : Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Shri Rajendra Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 27.07.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 The petitioners have filed this petition seeking following reliefs: INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.07.28 11:33:54 +0530 2 “a) to Quash the FIR Registered at Crime Number 520 of Palari, 2023 (Annexure P1) With Police Station Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh against the petitioner. b) To quash the Chargesheet (Unnumbered) Filed dated 12/11/20232 (Annexure P/3) with Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Balodabazar, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. c) To quash the First Order taking Cognizance dated 25/06/2024, (Annexure P/2) in Criminal Case no. 2806/2023 by learned JMFC-Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, and also to quash the criminal Case No. 3202/2023 pending before Learned J.M.F.C. - Balodabazar against petitioners.” 2 As per prosecution case, the respondent No.2/complainant lodged a complaint alleging that on 12.11.2023 at about 2:00 PM while he was standing in front of the house of the petitioners and talking to someone else through his mobile phone, the petitioner No.1 started abusing him in filthy language. When the complainant objected, the other family members, i.e. petitioner Nos.2 to 4 also arrived at the spot and started assaulting him with hand and fist causing injuries on his head. On the basis of his oral report, the police of Police Station, Palari, registered an FIR bearing Crime No.520/2023 against the petitioners for alleged commission of the offence. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, on the fateful day at about 3:00 PM, the respondent No.2/complainant came along with one Gulati Goyal and inquired about one Shiv Banjare from the petitioner No.1. When he informed that the said person is not at home, the respondent No.2 and Gulati Goyal started uttering filthy language, and as such the mother of petitioner No.1 intervened. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 and Gulati Goyal assaulted the petitioner No.1. On the complaint of petitioner No.1, the police of Police Station Palari registered an FIR bearing Crime No.519/2023 against the complainant, his associate Gulati Goyal and others for the offence punishable under 3 Sections 294, 323, 34, and 506 of the IPC. It is further contended that after the complainant came into knowledge of registration of Crime No.519/2023 against him and his associates, he lodged a counter FIR being Crime No.520/2023 on the same day, which is a retaliatory act and an outburst of the earlier case. It is submitted that the allegations in Crime No.520/2023 are false and have been made maliciously to create a defence in Crime No.519/2023. Thus, FIR as well as the charge sheet and also the order taking cognizance dated 25.06.2024 may be quashed against the petitioners. 4 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for State would submit that on the report made by the complainant the FIR has been registered and after investigation charge sheet has been filed. 5 Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant would submit that for the alleged act committed by the petitioners, he lodged the report and after due investigation charge sheet was filed against the petitioners before the trial Court. Therefore, there is no merits in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7 At this juncture it would be apposite to refer the settled legal principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down the categories of cases where criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed including the cases where allegations do not prima facie constitute any offence or inherently improbable and it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 102 and 103 that- 4 "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are 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. (2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which criminal proceeding is a instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon 5 an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." 8 In the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and Another, (2019) 11 SCC 706 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 14 to 16 of its judgment that:- “14. First, we would like to deal with the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 2 that once the charge- sheet is filed, petition for quashing of FIR is untenable. We do not see any merit in this submission, keeping in mind the position of this Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat [(2011) 7 SCC 59 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23]. In Joseph Salvaraj A. [(2011) 7 SCC 59 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23], this Court while deciding the question whether the High Court could entertain the Section 482 petition for quashing of FIR, when the charge-sheet was filed by the police during the pendency of the Section 482 petition, observed : (SCC p. 63, para 16)" 16. Thus, from the general conspectus of the various sections under which the appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even prima facie from the complainant's FIR. Even if the charge-sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge [Joesph Saivaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, 2007 SCC OnLine Guj 365] could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant's FIR, charge- sheet, documents, etc. or not." 15. Even otherwise it must be remembered that the provision invoked by the accused before the High Court is Section 482 CrPC and that this Court is hearing an appeal from an order under Section 482 CrPC. Section 482 CrPC reads as follows:- “482. Saving of inherent powers of the High Court.— Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 16. There is nothing in the words of this section which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court [G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636, para 7 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513. Umesh Kumar v. State of A.P., (2013) 10 SCC 591, para 20 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 338 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 237] . Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced 6 and the allegations have materialised into a charge-sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge- sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court.” 9 From perusal of the documents annexed with the petition, it transpires that the complainant lodged a report against the petitioners with respect to incident occurred on 12.11.2023 for which the offence of Sections 294, 323, 34 and 506 of the IPC were registered in Crime No.520/2023 and charge sheet was filed against the petitioners. As per submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners, firstly they have lodged an FIR No.519/2023 for the offence under Sections 294, 323, 34 and 506 of the IPC against the respondent No.2 and others with respect to incident of marpeet committed by the complainant and his companion with them on the same day i.e. on 12.11.2023 in which they received injuries. 10 From the consideration of the material placed in the petition by the parties concerned and also in view of the trivial issue between the petitioners and the complainant and there are report against each other, it would deem appropriate to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR as well as the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. 11 In view of the foregoing facts and submissions, this Court finds that the dispute between the parties appears to be personal in nature and the same has been given a criminal colour. There are material inconsistencies in the prosecution story and possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out particularly in the light counter FIR registered against the petitioners. The continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the 7 process of law. It is well settled that where the uncontroverted allegations do not disclose the commission of any offence, or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intention, the Court may exercise its inherent powers to secure the ends of justice. 12 Accordingly, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned FIR No.520/2023, registered at Police Station, Palari, Charge Sheet dated 12.11.2023, order taking cognizance dated 25.06.2024 in Criminal Case No.2806/2023 and criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No.3202/2023, pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazar (C.G.) against the petitioners, are hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder