1 CGHC010281212026 2026:CGHC:33364-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2019 of 2026 Prashant Chandrakar S/o K.P. Chandrakar Aged About 47 Years R/o 194, Ward No. 43, Mukt Nagar, Kasaridih, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Padmanabhpur, District- Durg (C.G.) 2. Shri Mahendra Chandrakar S/o Late Gyan Singh Chandrakar Aged About 63 Years R/o Behind Dr. Chandrakar, Ward No. 43, Mukt Nagar, Kasaridih District- Durg (C.G.) Permanent Address Village Semri, Post Darbar Mokhli, Tahsil Patan District- Durg (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Deputy Advocate General. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.08.03 17:34:08 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sumitra Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sumit Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. 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 petitioner with the following prayers: “1. To allow the instant petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 preferred by the petitioners. 2. To quash the FIR No. 0311/225 registered at P.S. Padmanabhpurm Distt. Durg (C.G.) dated 08.09.2025 for offence under Section 329(3) & 324(4) of BNS, 2023 against the petitioner. 3. To quash the charge-sheet bearing No. 270 of 2025 dated 16.10.2025 emanating from FIR No. 0311/2025 registered at P.S. Padmanabhpur, Distt. Durg (C.G.) dated 08.09.2025 for offence under Section 329(3) & 324(4) of BNS, 2023 against the petitioner. 3 4. To quash the impugned order dated 25.11.2025 whereby the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) has taken cognizance of the impugned charge-sheet in Crime No. 0311 of 2025 registered at P.S. Padmanabhpur, Distt. Durg (C.G.) dated 08.09.2025 for offence under Section 329(3) & 324(4) of BNS, 2023 and registered the impugned criminal proceedings as Criminal Case/RCC No. 36751 of 2025 against the petitioner. 5. To quash the further proceedings in Criminal Case/RCC No. 36751 of 2025 pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) in Crime No. 0311/2025 registered at P.S. Padmanabhpur, Distt. Durg (C.G.) dated 08.09.2025 for offence under Section 329(3) & 324(4) of BNS, 2023 against the petitioner. 6. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the cost to the petitioner.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition has been preferred challenging FIR No. 0311/2025 dated 08.09.2025 registered at Police Station Padmanabhpur, District Durg for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3) and 324(4) of the BNS, 2023, the charge-sheet bearing No. 270/2025 dated 16.10.2025 filed pursuant thereto, as well as the order dated 25.11.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences. 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that 4 the prosecution has been initiated solely on the basis of suspicion. Referring to the contents of the FIR, it is argued that the complainant himself alleged that his boundary wall and gate were demolished by some unknown person by using a JCB on 26.08.2025 and merely expressed suspicion against the present petitioners without attributing any specific overt act or disclosing any material to establish their involvement in the alleged incident. According to learned counsel, even if the allegations contained in the FIR are accepted in their entirety, they do not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the complainant has deliberately suppressed the existence of a long- standing civil dispute between the parties. It is submitted that petitioner is a Class-I Officer in the Indian Army presently posted at Pune. The petitioner and his family members is the owners of land bearing Khasra No. 787/15 admeasuring about 3200 sq. ft. situated at Mukt Nagar, Ward No.43, Kasaridih, Durg, out of which approximately 2000 sq. ft. has been constructed upon and the remaining 1200 sq. ft. is lying vacant. He also contended that access to the vacant portion of the land is available through a 20 feet CC Road situated behind the petitioners' house, where the septic tank has also been constructed. However, the complainant and one Rajesh Singh Thakur illegally encroached upon the said public road by constructing a boundary wall and installing an iron gate, thereby obstructing access to the petitioners' property and preventing them from carrying out necessary maintenance of the septic tank. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted a complaint before the 5 Municipal Corporation, Durg on 30.05.2024 seeking removal of the encroachment. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that acting upon the said complaint, the Municipal Corporation initiated proceedings and, upon verification, found substance in the allegations made by the petitioner. Notices were issued to the complainant and Rajesh Singh Thakur calling upon them to remove the encroachment and to submit their replies. According to learned counsel, the explanation furnished by Rajesh Singh Thakur was not found satisfactory by the authorities. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Durg issued memoranda to the concerned administrative authorities directing removal of the encroachment and fixed dates for carrying out the demolition proceedings. He further submitted that before the proposed action could be undertaken, objections were raised by Rajesh Singh Thakur claiming that the disputed boundary wall had been constructed by the complainant. Thereafter, further notices were issued to the complainant requiring removal of the encroachment. Orders were also passed by the Municipal Corporation directing removal of the illegal construction. However, on the scheduled date of removal, the complainant's house was found locked and, in view of the request made by Rajesh Singh Thakur that the proceedings be conducted jointly, the proposed action was deferred. 8. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite repeated notices issued by the Municipal Corporation directing 6 the complainant to produce relevant documents, he failed to cooperate with the proceedings. The petitioners, on the other hand, continued pursuing the matter and requested the authorities to conclude the proceedings relating to removal of the encroachment. Subsequently, demarcation of the disputed land was carried out through the revenue authorities, and the Patwari report reflected that the width of the public road had substantially reduced due to the alleged encroachment. He also staed that only after the municipal proceedings had advanced and the authorities had taken steps for removal of the encroachment, the complainant, in connivance with Rajesh Singh Thakur, lodged the impugned FIR on 08.09.2025 with an ulterior motive to pressurize the petitioners and frustrate the proceedings initiated by them before the Municipal Corporation. It is submitted that the FIR is nothing but a counterblast to the action initiated by the petitioners against the illegal encroachment. 9. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation has not been conducted fairly. Though the alleged incident is stated to have occurred between 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. in a densely populated residential locality, no independent witness has been examined during investigation. The charge-sheet has been filed only on the basis of the statements of the complainant, his aunt and Rajesh Singh Thakur, who himself is an interested person and a party to the dispute concerning the alleged encroachment. He further submits that the petitioner had also preferred WPC No. 6407 of 2025 before this Court complaining of inaction on the part of the Municipal Corporation in 7 removing the encroachment. By order dated 05.01.2026, this Court directed the Municipal Corporation to verify the encroachment and proceed in accordance with law. According to the petitioner, the criminal proceedings have been initiated only as a retaliatory measure on account of the action taken by the petitioners for removal of the encroachment. It is, therefore, submitted that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature concerning the alleged encroachment and boundary wall, but the complainant has attempted to give it a criminal colour with the sole object of wreaking vengeance upon the petitioner. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anukul Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2060, Shailesh Kumar Singh alias Shailesh R. Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1462, Kapil Agrawal and Others v. Sanjay Sharma and Others, reported in (2021) 5 SCC 524 and the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 to contend that where criminal proceedings are manifestly mala fide, instituted to settle a civil dispute, or the allegations do not prima facie disclose the commission of any offence, this Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the BNSS and quash the impugned FIR, charge-sheet and the consequential proceedings. 10. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the petition and submitted that the allegations made in the FIR, the statements of the 8 witnesses recorded during investigation and the material collected by the Investigating Officer prima facie disclose the commission of offences punishable under Sections 329(3) and 324(4) of the BNS, 2023. It is submitted that after due investigation, sufficient material was found against the petitioner and, accordingly, charge-sheet bearing No. 270/2025 dated 16.10.2025 was filed before the competent Court, whereupon the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, has taken cognizance vide order dated 25.11.2025. It is further submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding pendency of a civil dispute, false implication, mala fides, absence of independent witnesses and alleged defects in the investigation are all disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 528 of the BNSS. Learned State counsel further submits that after filing of the charge- sheet and taking of cognizance, the case is pending before the learned trial Court for consideration/framing of charge, however, the petitioner has deliberately failed to appear before the said Court and, instead of participating in the trial, has chosen to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a view to delay the criminal proceedings. It is, therefore, submitted that the petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal 9 proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if 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, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS). 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Supreme Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 14. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 10 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has authoritatively settled the scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the BNSS). The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the power to quash criminal proceedings is required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the rarest of rare cases. It has been categorically observed that while considering a prayer for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR, nor can it appreciate the evidence or conduct a mini trial. The Court is only required to examine whether the allegations, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court further emphasized that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the threshold, that investigation into cognizable offences should ordinarily be permitted to proceed unhindered, and that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with great caution and self- restraint, save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in manifest miscarriage of justice. 15. Very recently, in 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 reiterated the aforesaid principles and further held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS), the High Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact or evaluate the evidentiary 11 worth of the material collected during investigation. The Court reaffirmed the test laid down in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor and observed that criminal proceedings can be quashed at the threshold only when the material relied upon by the accused is of sterling and impeccable quality, completely demolishes the prosecution case, remains incapable of being refuted by the prosecution, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. Unless all these parameters are cumulatively satisfied, the High Court ought not to interfere in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, leaving the parties to establish their respective cases before the trial Court in accordance with law. 16. In the present case, a perusal of the FIR, the charge-sheet and the material collected during investigation would reveal that the complainant has alleged that his boundary wall and gate were demolished by using a JCB and that the petitioner trespassed into the premises after breaking open the lock of the gate and caused damage to the property. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the complainant and other witnesses and, upon consideration of the material so collected, found sufficient grounds to submit the charge-sheet against the petitioner. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, upon consideration of the police report and the material accompanying the charge-sheet, has also taken cognizance of the offences by order dated 25.11.2025. 17. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is 12 that the FIR has been lodged merely on suspicion and is a counterblast to the proceedings initiated by him before the Municipal Corporation regarding the alleged encroachment made by the complainant and one Rajesh Singh Thakur over the public road. It has also been contended that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature, that the complainant has suppressed the pending municipal and civil proceedings, that no independent witness has supported the prosecution case and, therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. However, all these submissions constitute the defence of the petitioner and involve seriously disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 528 of the BNSS. Whether the FIR has been lodged with mala fide intention, whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated on account of the pending dispute relating to the alleged encroachment and whether the prosecution witnesses are reliable are all matters which require appreciation of evidence and can only be decided during trial. 18. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence collected during investigation nor can it record findings regarding the correctness or otherwise of the rival versions projected by the parties. The pendency of municipal proceedings or the existence of a civil dispute between the parties, by itself, cannot be a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings if the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during 13 investigation prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences. The defence sought to be projected by the petitioner is required to be established before the learned trial Court by leading appropriate evidence and the same cannot be examined in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 528 of the BNSS. 19. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika (supra) and Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not fall within any of the exceptional categories warranting exercise of extraordinary or inherent jurisdiction for quashing the criminal proceedings. The allegations made in the FIR, coupled with the material collected during investigation, cannot be said to be so absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person could arrive at a conclusion that a prima facie case exists against the petitioner. The pleas raised by the petitioner are essentially matters of defence and their correctness can be examined only upon appreciation of evidence during the course of trial. At this stage, this Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial or evaluate the evidentiary value of the material collected during investigation. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the settled legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the 14 BNSS for quashing FIR No.0311/2025 dated 08.09.2025 registered at Police Station Padmanabhpur, District Durg, the consequential charge- sheet bearing No.270/2025 dated 16.10.2025 and the order dated 25.11.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg taking cognizance thereof. 21. It is also pertinent to note that despite submission of the charge- sheet and the matter being pending before the learned trial Court for consideration of charge, the petitioner has not been appearing before the said Court and has instead invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Such conduct also does not persuade this Court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein are only for deciding the present petition and shall not influence the learned trial Court while considering the question of framing of charge or during the course of trial, which shall proceed independently in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan