1 CGHC010314522026 2026:CGHC:36734-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2168 of 2026 1 - Jayendra Singh Bhandari S/o Man Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Ramraja House, V I P Road, P.S. Telibandha, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of C.G. Through Station House Officer Telibandha, P.S., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Sunita Chawla W/o Shri Vijay Chawla Aged About 56 Years R/o 611- B, Infront Of Kareema Bagh Society, Near Poonam Chambers, Bayramji Town, Katol Road, Nagpur, Maharashtra ... Respondent(s) (cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T. K. Jha, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 18 .08.2026 1. Heard Mr. T. K. Jha, learned Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State/ respondent. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.08.19 15:03:15 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has filed the present CrMP under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and prayed for the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the petition and be pleased to quash the First Information report dated 10.07.2026 and sub sequential proceedings in connection with the crime bearing Crime/FIR No. 0294/2026 u/s 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC before the Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.) (Annexure P-1) (colly), in the interest of justice.” 3. The present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No. 0294/2026 registered at Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.). The case arises out of an alleged forged sale agreement dated 08.02.2012 concerning the complainant’s agricultural land situated at Mouza Amlidih, Patwari Halka No. 69, Khasra No. 289/98, admeasuring 0.202 hectares, Tahsil and District Raipur. It is alleged that the applicant, in conspiracy with his companions, prepared the said forged agreement showing the sale of the land for a consideration of Rs.25,21,000/- and also forged the complainant’s signature and those of the attesting witnesses, with an intention to take possession of the land. Pursuant to the order passed by the learned JMFC, Raipur on the complainant’s application under Section 175(3) of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.), the aforesaid FIR was registered. The applicant contends that the FIR has been lodged maliciously and amounts to an abuse of the process of law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged maliciously and is a clear attempt to give a criminal colour to a dispute which is essentially civil in nature. The dispute arises out of 3 the alleged sale agreement and is already the subject matter of Civil Suit No.24A/2025 for specific performance of contract, filed before the learned 12th District Judge, Raipur on 07.03.2025. The complainant, despite being duly aware of the said proceedings, failed to appear and was proceeded ex parte on 08.04.2025, and thereafter, after a considerable lapse of time, lodged the impugned FIR on 10.07.2026 with an ulterior and mala fide intention to harass the petitioner and pressurize him in the pending civil dispute. It is further submitted that the police registered the FIR without conducting any preliminary inquiry despite the substantial delay. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 05.08.2026 in the connected crime, which further demonstrates that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted. In these circumstances, continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, and therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the allegations made in the impugned FIR disclose prima facie commission of cognizable offences and involve serious allegations regarding preparation and use of a forged sale agreement, including alleged forgery of the complainant’s signature and signatures of the attesting witnesses, with an intention to obtain possession over the disputed land. The fact that a civil suit for specific performance is pending between the parties does not, by itself, bar the initiation of criminal proceedings where the allegations also disclose the commission of criminal offences. The alleged delay in lodging the FIR and the 4 complainant having been proceeded ex parte in the civil proceedings are matters which require appreciation of evidence and cannot be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. It is further submitted that the question whether the sale agreement is forged or genuine, whether the signatures have been fabricated, and whether the petitioner was involved in the alleged conspiracy are all matters requiring investigation and cannot be determined merely on the basis of the documents relied upon by the petitioner. The grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner does not amount to a finding on the merits of the allegations or disentitle the investigating agency from conducting a fair and effective investigation. It is a settled principle of law that where the FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the investigating agency is duty- bound to conduct a fair and complete investigation and the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, ought not to stifle a legitimate prosecution at its inception. Thus, at this stage, no interference is warranted in view of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021 (M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others) and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. The legal position on the issue of quashing of charge sheet 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 5 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 528 of BNSS/482 of the Cr.P.C. 8. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.) is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of B.N.S.S.), only has to consider whether or not the allegations of FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. Further, while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (now 528 of B.N.S.S.) , final conclusions are as under:- “i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevantprovisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; 6 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; 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; 7 xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur 8 (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in 9 passing the order of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps” either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/ disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order. xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of “no coercive steps to be adopted” within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by “no coercive steps to be adopted” as the term “no coercive steps to be adopted” can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied.” 9. Very recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025), while reiterating the 10 settled principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings, has once again emphasized that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised with great caution, circumspection and only in exceptional circumstances. 10. On perusal of the FIR, it appears that the complainant(s) have alleged that the accused persons, in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy and with an intention to obtain possession over the agricultural land belonging to the complainant(s), situated at Mouza Amlidih, Patwari Halka No. 69, Tahsil and District Raipur, bearing Khasra No. 289/98, admeasuring 0.202 hectares, prepared and executed a forged and fabricated agreement to sell dated 08.02.2012. It is specifically alleged that the signature of complainant No.1 and the signatures of the attesting witnesses appearing on the said agreement were forged and fabricated. The complainant(s) have further relied upon information obtained under the Right to Information Act from the office of the Senior Sub-Registrar, Raipur, alleging that no corresponding entry regarding the sale of the stamps bearing Nos.18372, 18373 and 18374 was found in the stamp vendor’s sale register for the relevant period, thereby raising a suspicion regarding the genuineness of the document. It is also alleged that accused No.1 had placed certain machines and vehicles in a discarded condition over the disputed land with an intention to take illegal possession thereof. The complainant(s) further alleged that they had earlier submitted a written complaint to the concerned police authorities on 05.05.2025, but no effective action was taken, compelling them to approach the learned Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the BNSS. Pursuant to the order dated 22.06.2026 11 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, directing registration of the FIR, Crime No.0294/2026 was registered at Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur, for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 11. In the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra) and the other settled principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, upon perusal of the contents of the FIR and the allegations levelled therein, we are of the considered opinion that the allegations regarding preparation and execution of a forged agreement to sell, forgery of the signatures of the complainant and attesting witnesses, use of the alleged forged document and the criminal conspiracy amongst the accused persons prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences. At this stage, the correctness or otherwise of the allegations and genuineness of the disputed document cannot be examined in detail in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, we do not find any good ground for interference, as it cannot be said that no prima facie offence is made out against the petitioners. 12. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. The learned trial Court is directed to make all endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika