1 CGHC010278242026 2026:CGHC:31847-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1920 of 2026 1 - Aniket Karsh S/o Ubari Lal Karsh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o MIG/1/05/ Maharana Pratap Nagar, Police Station Civil Line Rampur, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh ...Non-applicant/Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant/Petitioner : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate. For State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. 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. The present petition has been filed with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that looking to the abovementioned facts and grounds this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and the First Information Report dated 11.05.2026 bearing Crime No. 62/2026, Final Report bearing Charge-sheet No. 54/2026 dated 01.06.2026 Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.07.30 20:02:13 +0530 2 under Section 318(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, order dated 08.06.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kartala, District - Korba (C.G.) whereby the cognizance has been taken and the Criminal Case No. 528/2026 against the present applicant may kindly be quashed and the present applicant may kindly be discharged from all the offences, in the interest of justice.” 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on the complaint dated 16.12.2024 made by the Joint Director (Training), Regional Office, Industrial Training Institutes, Bilaspur (C.G.) an FIR bearing Crime No. 62/2026 was registered against the applicant on 11.05.2026 for offences punishable under Sections 318(2), 338, 336(3), and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNS’). During investigation, the police arrested the applicant, recorded witnesses’ statement, seized certain articles, and ultimately filed Charge-sheet No. 54/2026 on 01.06.2026 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kartala, upon which cognizance was taken on 08.06.2026 and Criminal Case No. 528/2026 has been registered against the applicant. It is alleged in the complaint against the applicant that the experience certificate and bank statement were forged and had been knowingly used by the applicant to secure government employment and obtain monetary benefits. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the continuation 3 of the criminal proceedings against the applicant is an abuse of the process of law, as the allegations contained in the FIR and the charge-sheet do not disclose the commission of any offence under Sections 318(2), 338, 336(3), or 340(2) of BNS. The applicant's appointment as Training Officer was made only after a rigorous selection process and verification of all documents by the competent Document Verification Committee, and there is no material to show that the applicant dishonestly induced the authorities or knowingly submitted forged documents to secure appointment. The prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, particularly as the experience certificate and the bank statement relied upon by the applicant were subsequently verified and certified as genuine by the issuing authorities, namely Princeton Institute of Engineering and Technology for Women, Telangana, and IDBI Bank, Korba. It is further contended that the bank statement was not a mandatory document for recruitment and, even otherwise, it cannot be treated as a "valuable security" within the meaning of Section 338 of BNS. In the absence of any material showing that the applicant fabricated any document or had knowledge of any alleged forgery, the offence of using a forged document as genuine is also not made out. 4. It is further submitted that the investigation suffers from serious legal and procedural infirmities, rendering the prosecution wholly unsustainable. Despite allegations of forgery, the 4 Investigating Officer failed to obtain any forensic science laboratory report, handwriting expert opinion, cyber forensic examination, or scientific verification of the disputed documents, and instead proceeded solely on conjectures and assumptions. It has been further contended that the prosecution has been initiated at the instance of the complainant, who allegedly acted with mala fide intent owing to prior disputes and complaints made by the applicant regarding corruption and departmental irregularities. The investigation is stated to be biased, incomplete, and lacking independent verification, while the applicant's resignation and subsequent departmental action cannot, by themselves, constitute the basis for criminal prosecution. In these circumstances, where no prima facie case is disclosed, the investigation is alleged to be tainted by mala fides, and the continuation of the proceedings would result in unnecessary harassment and irreparable prejudice to the applicant, it is submitted that this is a fit case for exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order dated 08.06.2026, and Criminal Case No. 528/2026 in order to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the petition and submits that the FIR in question was registered on the 5 basis of a written complaint made by the complainant and after completion of due investigation the charge-sheet has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kartala, District Korba (C.G.). Learned State counsel would further submit that the allegations levelled in the FIR and the charge- sheet disclose the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 318(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of BNS, which require appreciation of evidence and determination of disputed questions of fact, and the same cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’). It is further submitted that the defence raised by the applicant is matter of evidence which may be examined by the trial Court during trial and do not, by themselves, constitute a ground for quashment of either the FIR or the criminal proceedings at this stage. Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. In the matter of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Supreme Court in para 23 held as under :- “23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation 6 and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; 7 vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;” 8. In the case of 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 observed that:- “20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:- (i)Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality? (ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. 8 (iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted prosecution/complainant; and/or the material that justifiably refuted it cannot be by is by the such, the prosecution/complainant? (iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. [(See: Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013)]” 9. In the present case, as per the FIR, there is allegation against the applicant that the experience certificate and bank statement were forged and had been knowingly used by the applicant to secure government employment and obtain monetary benefits and the offence under Sections 318(2), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of BNS has been registered against the applicant. The principal contentions raised by the applicant, namely, that the experience certificate and bank statement were genuine, that no forensic or scientific examination was conducted, further that the 9 investigation is biased and actuated by mala fides and that the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted, which are matters which involve disputed questions of fact and appreciation of evidence. Such issues cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 10. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the FIR, charge-sheet and the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the allegations made against the applicant, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of cognizable offences warranting investigation and trial. At this stage, the Court is not required to evaluate the reliability or sufficiency of the evidence or to record findings on the merits of the rival claims. The law is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and reaffirmed in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra) that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised sparingly, with great caution and circumspection, only in exceptional cases where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, fail to disclose any offence or where the proceedings manifestly amount to an abuse of the process of law. 11. In the facts of the present case, this Court does not find that the matter falls within any of the exceptional categories warranting 10 exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. Since the allegations contained in the FIR as and the material collected during investigation available in the charge sheet disclose a prima facie case, and the issues raised by the applicant require adjudication on evidence before the competent trial Court, no ground is made out for quashing the FIR, charge-sheet, taking cognizance order, or the pending criminal case. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil