1 CGHC010313232026 2026:CGHC:36197-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 468 of 2026 1 - Sailesh Kumar Vasam S/o Shri Gopal Vasam Aged About 46 Years R/o Behind Mini Stadium Blockpara, House No. 692, Block Colony Bijapur, Tehsil And District Bijapur (C.G.) 2 - Chhwitesh Dongare S/o Shri S.R. Dongare Aged About 46 Years R/o Gad Colony, House No. G-7, Tehsil And District Bijapur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Ministry of Home, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Station House Officer Police Station Bijapur, District Bijapur (C.G.) 3 - Uday Pujari S/o Late Narsaiya Pujari Aged About 30 Years R/o Cherpal Pujari Para, Bijapur Ps Bijapur, District Bijapur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri B.P. Sharma and Shri Sameer Uraon, Advocates. For State : Shri Ashish Shukla, Addl. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 14.08.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs: INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.08.18 14:54:10 +0530 2 “b. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue quashing the Final Report No.48/2026 dated 22.6.2026 filed consequent to registration of FIR No.35/2026 dated 24.04.2026 for the offence under Section 108, 3 (5) of the BNS and also order taking cognizance of offence dated 25.6.2026 passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijapur in Criminal Case No.2166/2026 being in utter violation of petitioners' fundamental, constitutional rights and also amounting to abuse of process of court and abuse of process of law and liable to be nipped at the bud in the peculiar factual matrix of the case and in the interest of justice.” 2 The prosecution case, in brief, is that deceased Raju Pujari was working as Headmaster in Government Primary School, Manjhaarpara Paalnaar. It is alleged that the petitioners, who were posted as Sub- Engineer and Assistant Project Coordinator in Samagra Shiksha, Bijapur, along with co-accused Devashish Mandal, a contractor, were pressurizing the deceased to sign certain documents including documents relating to the construction of the school building and were demanding money from him. It is further alleged that although the construction work was not complete, the deceased was compelled to sign a certificate showing completion of the construction. According to the prosecution, owing to such pressure and harassment, the deceased was left with no option but to commit suicide. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has vehemently denied the allegations. It has been submitted that the petitioners were public servants discharging their official duties and had no personal dispute or motive against the deceased. The construction of the school building was undertaken through the prescribed departmental procedure. The responsibility for the construction was initially with the competent 3 district authority and was thereafter entrusted to Samagra Shiksha. The School Management Committee, consisting of the Headmaster and other members, awarded the construction work to the contractor, while the concerned engineering officials were responsible for supervision and measurement of the work. 4 An amount of approximately Rs.20.30 lakhs had been sanctioned for construction of the new primary school building. The construction commenced on 11.01.2025 and was completed before the death of the deceased. The petitioners have relied upon the measurement book, completion certificate, handing-over certificate and inspection records to contend that the work had substantially been completed. It has been pointed out that inspections were conducted by the competent authorities and that only minor deficiencies, such as installation of ceiling fans and certain finishing work, remained at one stage, which were subsequently rectified by the contractor. Thereafter, the final measurement was prepared and forwarded through the prescribed official channel for certification. These documents constitute contemporaneous official records and demonstrate that there was no occasion for the petitioners to compel the deceased to falsely certify completion of the construction. It has also been submitted that the construction stood completed in January/February 2026, whereas the deceased committed suicide only thereafter, around 22.04.2026. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the allegation that the deceased was compelled to certify a work which was still incomplete is contrary to the documentary material placed on record. Thus, ingredients of Section 108 of the BNS are not made out. It is argued 4 that mere allegations of pressure, demand or administrative interaction, without any specific material demonstrating intentional instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid proximate to the suicide, cannot constitute abetment of suicide. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to identify any specific overt act on the part of either petitioner which directly or indirectly compelled the deceased to take the extreme step. 5 The petitioners have also drawn the attention of the Court to the alleged suicide note said to have been recovered from the undergarments of the deceased. According to them, the said note was sent for handwriting examination, but the report of the handwriting expert has not been filed along with the charge-sheet. It is contended that if the prosecution itself considered the suicide note material to the investigation, the same ought to have been produced before the competent court along with the expert's report. The petitioners therefore sought consideration of the said material by this Court. They also relied upon the statements of the witnesses to contend that the prosecution version is not consistent or sufficient to establish the offence. It has been submitted that the witnesses do not attribute any specific act of instigation or intentional aid to the petitioners. Even the allegations regarding the contractor allegedly pressurizing the deceased to sign a blank cheque cannot, by themselves, establish the petitioners' involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. 6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioners are seeking appreciation of disputed questions of fact, which cannot ordinarily be undertaken in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. It has been 5 argued that the investigation has culminated in filing of the final report and the competent Magistrate has already applied his mind and taken cognizance of the offence. The statements of the wife of the deceased, his daughter and other witnesses, according to the State, disclose sufficient material warranting continuation of the criminal proceedings. It has also been submitted on behalf of the State that the question whether the construction was actually complete, whether the deceased was compelled to sign documents, whether any demand was made upon him and whether such conduct had a nexus with his suicide are all matters which require appreciation of evidence. Such disputed questions cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 7 Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the material placed before this Court, the question which arises for consideration is whether, at this stage, the Court can conclude that the allegations against the petitioners are so inherently improbable or devoid of substance that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. 8 It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings, the Court is required to examine whether the allegations, taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, prima facie disclose commission of an offence. At this stage, the Court is not expected to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence or undertake a mini-trial. The defence of the accused and the reliability or otherwise of the prosecution witnesses ordinarily fall for consideration during trial. 6 9 In the present case, the prosecution has alleged that the deceased was subjected to pressure in connection with the construction of the school building and was required to sign documents relating thereto. The prosecution has also relied upon statements of persons acquainted with the deceased and the circumstances preceding his death. The wife and daughter of the deceased have allegedly made statements concerning the pressure exerted upon him, while other witnesses have also referred to the conduct of the persons connected with the construction work. 10 The petitioners' reliance upon the measurement book, completion certificate, inspection reports and other official documents may constitute a substantial defence during trial. However, at this stage, this Court cannot conclusively determine the evidentiary value of those documents vis-à-vis the oral allegations made by the prosecution witnesses. The mere existence of official documents showing completion of construction does not, by itself, conclusively rule out the possibility of the deceased having been subjected to pressure at an earlier stage or in relation to other documents or payments. Further, the contention regarding the suicide note and the pending handwriting examination cannot, at this stage, be treated as a ground for terminating the prosecution. If the suicide note was seized during investigation and sent for expert examination, the evidentiary value and authenticity of the same can appropriately be considered by the trial Court. The absence of the handwriting expert's report from the material presently before this Court does not, by itself, establish that the entire 7 prosecution case is false or that the proceedings are legally unsustainable. 11 The contention that there is no material constituting abetment under Section 108 of the BNS also requires consideration in the light of the allegations and evidence as a whole. The question whether the alleged acts amount to instigation, intentional aid or otherwise satisfy the statutory ingredients of abetment cannot be determined merely by isolating individual statements from the prosecution case. The surrounding circumstances, the conduct attributed to each accused, the proximity of such conduct to the suicide and the circumstances in which the deceased allegedly acted are matters which may require evidence. It is also significant that the petitioners seek quashing after completion of investigation and filing of the final report, followed by an order of cognizance by the learned Magistrate. The Magistrate has thus found sufficient ground at the preliminary stage to proceed with the criminal case. This Court, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, would not substitute its own appreciation of disputed facts for that of the trial Court unless the material unmistakably demonstrates that the prosecution is wholly groundless or that continuation of the proceedings would constitute a manifest abuse of the process of law. 12 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others1 laid down the 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 1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 8 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. In paragraph 102 of the report, their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC/528 of B.N.S.S should be exercised, which are as under: - "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 9 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." 13 The disputed issues regarding the actual stage of construction, the circumstances in which the completion documents were prepared, the alleged demand for money, the conduct of the contractor and the petitioners, the statements of the witnesses, the circumstances preceding the suicide and the authenticity and relevance of the suicide note, are all matters which can appropriately be tested through evidence before the trial Court. It is therefore held that the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that the FIR, Final Report No.48/2026 dated 22.06.2026 or the order dated 25.06.2026 taking cognizance suffers from such patent illegality or infirmity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. 14 Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder