1 2026:CGHC:903-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3535 of 2025 1 - Kushum Dahariya W/o Shri Mr. Ivraj Dahariya Aged About 47 Years R/o Chouhan Town, G/9, 23-A Penta House, Chowki Smriti Nagar, P.S. Supela, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kumari Riya Dahariya D/o Ivraj Dahariya Aged About 25 Years R/o Chouhan Town, G/9, 23-A, Penta House, Chowki Smriti Nagar, P.S. Supela, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho, P.S. Supela (Op) Smriti Nagar, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Jyotirmai Mani D/o Narendra Kumar Ram Aged About 34 Years R/o Chouhan Town, G/9, 14, Chowki Smriti Nagar, P.S. Supela, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 07.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.01.08 17:40:59 +0530 2 heard Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1 / State. 2. From perusal of the office report dated 05.01.2026, it transpires that notice has already been served upon respondent No.2, but inspite of service of notice, none appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 to contest the petition. 3. The petitioners have filed this petition with the following prayer: “1. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR bearing FIR No. 105/2023 punishable under section 294, 506, 323 and 34 of the IPC is lodged on dated 03/02/2023 and also aggrieved against the Final Report No. 1244/2023 dated 30/09/2025 filed under Section 294, 506, 323, 201 and 34 of IPC also aggrieved against the cognizance taken by the Ld. Trial Court on 30/09/2025 under Section 294, 506, 323, 201 and 34 of the IPC in criminal case no. 33743/2025 Pending before Ld. CJM, Durg, District Durg (C.G).for the interest of justice. 2. Any other relief this Hon'ble High Court deems fit.” 4. The prosecution case, as emerging from the FIR and subsequent investigation, is that on 03.02.2023, respondent No.2 lodged a report alleging that on 02.02.2023 at about 7:30 PM, when she went to the terrace to collect clothes kept for drying, she found that the clothes were removed from the rope by the petitioners 3 and kept on a nearby wall, and upon questioning them, the petitioners allegedly abused her in filthy language, engaged in a scuffle, and threatened to kill her, during which intervention by her husband to pacify the matter resulted in his sustaining injuries on the head and face. On the basis of this report, Crime No.105/2023 was registered and after investigation the police filed a charge- sheet under Sections 294, 506, 323, 201 and 34 of the IPC, upon which the learned trial Court took cognizance on 30.09.2025. It is further the prosecution version that there exists a counter case arising out of the same incident, as petitioner No.1 also lodged an FIR on 03.02.2023 alleging that respondent No.2 and her husband had similarly removed clothes from the terrace, abused the petitioners with filthy and caste-based language, threatened them, forcibly entered their house and kitchen, and assaulted petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 causing injuries to their head, face and body, pursuant to which Crime No.104/2023 was registered and a charge-sheet dated 18.06.2025 was filed under Sections 294, 506, 323, 34, 354-A of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. According to the prosecution, both FIRs arise out of the same neighbourhood dispute, with rival allegations of assault, abuse, criminal intimidation and injuries, and the cases have proceeded separately on the basis of their respective charge-sheets. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners is wholly illegal, 4 unconstitutional, and contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, inasmuch as respondent No.2 has deliberately suppressed material facts and has lodged a false and motivated FIR by way of a counterblast to the earlier complaint filed by the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners, who reside in a penthouse, had lawfully hung their clothes on their own terrace, which were forcibly removed by respondent No.2 and her husband, and when the petitioners questioned this act, respondent No.2 and her husband initiated a dispute, abused the petitioners by taking their caste name, and assaulted them, compelling the petitioners to lodge an FIR first, whereafter, only to save themselves from criminal liability, respondent No.2 lodged the present FIR after suppressing these material circumstances. It is further contended that the impugned FIR is based on false, vague and omnibus allegations, no prima facie offence is made out against the petitioners, and the charge-sheet itself has been filed after an inordinate delay of about two years, clearly reflecting malafides. Learned counsel submits that permitting the trial to continue in such a frivolous and vindictive prosecution would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law, which is impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), wherein it has been categorically held that criminal proceedings initiated for personal vendetta or with mala fide intent, or by suppressing material facts, deserve to be quashed to 5 prevent abuse of the process of Court. 6. Learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged on the basis of specific allegations disclosing the commission of cognizable offences against the petitioners and, therefore, no interference is warranted at this stage. It is contended that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are supported by the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation and upon due investigation the police have rightly filed the charge-sheet, on the basis of which the learned trial Court has taken cognizance. Learned State counsel further submits that the existence of a counter case by itself does not render the FIR false or frivolous, and the truthfulness or otherwise of the rival versions can only be adjudicated upon after appreciation of evidence during trial. It is argued that the scope of interference under the inherent jurisdiction is limited, and this Court cannot embark upon a mini trial or examine disputed questions of fact at this stage. According to the State, since a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with this petition. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down the 6 principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first information report and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 9. In Manoj Kumar Sharma and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2016) 9 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed that High Courts have the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, including those related to non- compoundable offenses, to prevent the abuse of court process and to serve the ends of justice, particularly when the allegations are absurd, inherently improbable, or when there is evidence of malicious intent or the dispute is essentially private and amicable. 10. Considering the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, on perusal of the FIR, the charge-sheet and the material placed on record, and keeping in view the undisputed fact that there exists a counter case arising out of the same incident between the same parties, this Court finds that the allegations made in the impugned FIR are essentially the outcome of a neighbourhood dispute and appear to have been lodged as a counterblast to the earlier FIR registered at the instance of the petitioners. It is also evident that material facts relating to the prior incident and the role of respondent No.2 and her husband have been suppressed, and the charge-sheet has been filed after an 7 inordinate delay, which lends support to the contention of mala fides. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of law, as no prima facie case is made out warranting a full-fledged criminal trial. 11. Accordingly, to secure the ends of justice and to prevent misuse of the criminal process, the present petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. 12. Consequently, the FIR bearing Crime No. 105/2023, for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323 and 34 of the IPC, Final Report No. 1244/2023 dated 30.09.2025 filed under Section 294, 506, 323, 201 and 34 of the IPC, order taking cognizance dated 30.09.2025 in Criminal Case no. 33743/2025, pending before the CJM Durg, District- Durg are hereby quashed and set aside. It is further directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in connection with the aforesaid FIR. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet