1 CGHC010420702025 2026:CGHC:31426-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3039 of 2025 Saba Khan D/o (Wrongly Motioned S/o) Late Abdul Alim Khan Aged About 37 Years R/o House No.41,housing Board Colony. P.S. City Kotwali,balodabazar District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director General Of Police Police Department, New Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent Of Police Balodabazar-Bhatapara District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Station House Officer Police Station City Kotwali Balodabaza District- Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 5 - Sharik Khan Son Of G.M. Khan Aged About 52 Years Resident Of Ward No.01, Sonpuri Road, Balodabazar Police Station Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate. ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.07.28 10:48:13 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 23/07/2026 1. Heard Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, for the State/Respondent No.1, Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioners have filed the present petition with the following prayer: "1. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023 filed by the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 2. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR No. 506/2025 registered on dated 20.05.2025 at police station City Kotwali Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh filed under section 296, 115(2), 351(2), of B.N.S., in the interest of justice. 3. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash charge sheet on dated 26.07.2025 and cognizance dated 06.08.2025 and entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Case 3040/2025 (parties being State Vs. Saba Khan) pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh in commission of offence under section 296, 115(2), 351(2), 238 of B.N.S. against the petitioner in the interest of justice 4. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly grant any other reliefs in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.." 3 3. The brief facts of the case that the impugned FIR No. 506/2025 was registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on the allegation that on 31.01.2025 at about 1:20 p.m., an altercation took place between the petitioner and the complainant in the District Court premises, Balodabazar, during which the petitioner allegedly assaulted the complainant with her sandal/slipper. After completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet, which has been registered as Criminal Case No. 3040/2025 and is pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balodabazar. Aggrieved by the registration of the FIR and the continuation of the criminal proceedings, which are alleged to be false, baseless and an abuse of the process of law, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashment of the FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR No. 506/2025 and the consequential charge-sheet are the outcome of personal animosity and have been maliciously instituted to harass the petitioner. It is submitted that both the petitioner and the complainant are practicing advocates at Balodabazar and Bhatapara Courts. The dispute arose on 31.01.2025 in the Court premises when the complainant allegedly behaved inappropriately with the petitioner, and upon the petitioner objecting to such conduct, the complainant, who was then the Chairman of the Bar Association, convened a meeting without notice to the petitioner and got her suspended from the Bar Association without affording any opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, out of personal vendetta, the complainant lodged the impugned 4 complaint after an unexplained delay of nearly four months. It is further submitted that the petitioner had also lodged a complaint against the complainant; however, no proper action was taken by the police, thereby reflecting a biased and unfair investigation. 5. It is further submitted that even if the allegations contained in the FIR and the charge-sheet are accepted in their entirety, the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are not made out against the petitioner. There is no independent evidence or medical material to substantiate the allegations, and the prosecution has proceeded merely on the basis of a false and concocted version of events. The petitioner is a practicing advocate having an unblemished professional reputation, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and cause irreparable prejudice to her career and reputation. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, may be pleased to quash the impugned FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential criminal proceedings. 6. Learned State counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as well as learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 5 submits that the impugned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint disclosing commission of cognizable offences and, upon completion of a fair and proper investigation, sufficient material was collected against the petitioner, which culminated in the filing of the charge-sheet before the competent Court. It is submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balodabazar, after considering the police report and the material collected during investigation, has rightly taken cognizance of the offences. The allegations made by the 5 petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the petitioner has an efficacious remedy to raise all factual and legal pleas before the trial Court, including by seeking discharge in accordance with law. 7. It is further submitted that the allegations contained in the FIR, the statements of witnesses and the material collected during investigation prima facie disclose the commission of the alleged offences and, therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings cannot be said to be an abuse of the process of law. The pleas raised by the petitioner regarding false implication, previous enmity and mala fides are matters of defence, which can only be adjudicated after appreciation of evidence during trial and not in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, learned counsel submit that the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where no cognizable offence is made out. Since the present case discloses a prima facie case against the petitioner and the learned trial Court has already taken cognizance, no interference is warranted by this Court, and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with this petition. 9. Considering the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and have perused the FIR, the charge-sheet, the statements recorded during the course of investigation and the other material placed on record. The scope of interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction 6 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is well settled. Though such power is required to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, it can be invoked where the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court or where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of the alleged offences. Therefore, the present matter is required to be examined in the light of the settled legal principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. 10. The principal issue which arises for consideration is whether the allegations contained in the impugned FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, if taken at their face value, constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner or whether the criminal proceedings have been initiated as a result of the personal dispute between the parties and deserve to be quashed to secure the ends of justice. For deciding the aforesaid issue, it would be appropriate to examine the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to the scope and ambit of the inherent powers of the High Court while considering a prayer for quashing of an FIR, charge-sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 11. 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 7 that - "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. 8 (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 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." 12. In the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another Vs. State (NCT of 9 Delhi), Department of Home and Another, (2019) 11 SCC 706 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 14 and 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 10 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 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.” 13. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court has carefully examined the allegations contained in the impugned FIR, the statements recorded during investigation and the charge-sheet filed by the prosecution. Even if the allegations contained therein are accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie disclose the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The genesis of the dispute admittedly lies in the differences between the petitioner and the complainant, both of whom are practicing advocates, arising out of events in the Bar Association. The material collected during investigation does not disclose any independent 11 evidence which would prima facie establish the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioner. The prosecution appears to have been initiated on the basis of allegations emanating from the personal discord between the parties, without there being sufficient material to constitute the offences alleged. 14. It is also not in dispute that the alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 31.01.2025, whereas the FIR came to be lodged only on 20.05.2025. No satisfactory explanation for such delay is forthcoming from the prosecution. The petitioner had also lodged a complaint against the complainant with respect to the same incident, which forms part of the record. These circumstances, coupled with the background of the dispute between the parties, lend support to the petitioner's contention that the criminal proceedings are a sequel to the personal rivalry existing between them. Though mala fides by themselves may not constitute a ground to quash criminal proceedings where a cognizable offence is otherwise disclosed, in the facts of the present case, the attendant circumstances assume significance while examining whether continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 15. The contention advanced on behalf of the respondents on the strength of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, does not advance their case. The said decision itself recognizes that where the allegations, even if accepted at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence or where the case falls within the categories enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. Likewise, the decision 12 in Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706, clearly holds that the filing of a charge-sheet or taking of cognizance does not denude the High Court of its inherent jurisdiction where continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion and applying the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) and Anand Kumar Mohatta (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case falls within the categories carved out for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and would not serve the ends of justice. 17. Consequently, the petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. FIR No. 506/2025 dated 20.05.2025 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara for the offence under Section 296, 115(2), 351(2) of B.N.S., the charge-sheet dated 26.07.2025, the order taking cognizance dated 06.08.2025 and the entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3040/2025 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, are hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok