1 CGHC010142442024 2026:CGHC:37070-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1550 of 2024 1 - Shailendra Lahre S/o Hiraram Lahre Aged About 35 Years R/o Sainagar, Uslapur, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). 2 – XYZ 3 - Abhishek Rathore S/o Shri Mahendra Rathore Aged About 36 Years R/o Sant Marg, Gandhi Nagar, Indore (M.P.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Home (Police), Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director General Police, Police Head Quarters (PHQ), Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Arvind Kujur, Indian Police Service Officer, Currently Posted As Commandant, 3rd Battalion, Amleshwar, Durg (C.G.). 4 - The Station House Officer, Police Station- Maudhapara, District- Raipur (C.G.). 5 - The Station House Officer, Police Station-Kumhari District- Durg (C.G.). 6 - The Station House Officer, Police Station-Bhilai 3 (Old Bhilai), District- Durg (C.G.). 7 - The Station House Officer, Police Station-Jarhagaon, District- Mungeli (C.G.). 8 - The Station House Officer, Police Station - City Kotwali District- Mungeli (C.G.). BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.08.22 10:38:32 +0530 2 9 - The Station House Officer, Police Station-City Kotwali, District- Bemetara (C.G.). 10 - Piyush Tiwari S/o Basant Tiwari Aged About 33 Years R/o New Colony, Tikrapara, Police Station-Tikrapara, District- Raipur (C.G.). 11 - Nishant Phuljhale S/o Keshavram Phuljhale Aged About 28 Years R/o Mahrabasit, Tikrapara, Raipur, (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Aman Saxena, Advocate For Respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 to 9 For Respondent No.3 For Respondents No.10 and 11 : : : Mr.Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General Ms.Smriti Ekka, Advocate Mr.Raza Ali, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19.08.2026 1. Heard Mr.Aman Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1, 2 and 4 to 9, Ms.Smriti Ekka, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and Mr.Raza Ali, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.10 and 11. 2. By way of this petition under Section 482 CrPC the petitioners have prayed for following relief:- 3 “1. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating of the petitioners for its kind perusal. 2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Order of framing charges passed in Crime No. 243/2021 that is falsely registered against the petitioners annexed herewith as Annexure P/1. 3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceedings including chargesheet No. 374/2021 and initiated against the petitioners arising from FIR No. 243/2021 dated 27.05.2021 annexed herewith as Annexures P/2 (Colly.) as being malafide and abuse of the process of law. 4. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.1 and 2 to conduct disciplinary enquiry against respondent 3 per applicable law for malicious abuse of law and weaponizing it against innocent citizens and take action to set up example for the rest of the police force which abuses the law. 5. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to compensate the petitioners as well as award costs of litigation as the present false and fabricated report has been lodged by the police officers against them, due to which they are facing mental and physical harassment. 6. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/reliefs in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioners.” 4 3. The factual background leading to the present petition is substantially similar to that noticed by this Court in the connected proceedings arising out of Crime No. 107/2019, which have been considered in CRMP No. 1512/2024. The Petitioners have relied upon the same sequence of events and the subsequent series of criminal proceedings initiated against Petitioner No. 2, Priyanka Lahre, her husband Petitioner No. 1, Atul Rathore, and other members of their family. Petitioner No. 2 came into contact with Respondent No. 10, Piyush Tiwari, in the year 2017. According to the Petitioners, Respondent No. 10 represented himself to be an unmarried police officer and represented that he intended to marry Petitioner No. 2. On the basis of such representation, a relationship developed between them. Petitioner No. 2 subsequently came to know that Respondent No. 10 was already married. Thereafter, she decided to discontinue the relationship and, on 05.04.2018, married Petitioner No. 1, Atul Rathore, through Arya Sanskar Kendra, Bilaspur. The marriage was subsequently accepted by both families. 4. According to the Petitioners, after the marriage Respondent No. 10 continued to pressurise Petitioner No. 2 to maintain the relationship and threatened her with circulation of her private photographs. The Petitioners allege that when Petitioner No. 2 refused to comply with such demands, a series of criminal proceedings came to be instituted against her, her husband and 5 members of her family. The first such proceeding was Crime No. 107/2019 registered at Police Station Moudhapara, Raipur. Thereafter, Crime No. 192/2019 was registered at Police Station Kumhari, Durg, followed by Crime No. 412/2020 at Police Station Old Bhilai, Durg. In the year 2021, further proceedings came to be registered in District Mungeli, including Crime No. 14/2021 at Police Station Jarhagaon, Crime No. 58/2021 at Police Station Jarhagaon, Crime No. 243/2021 at Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, and Crime No. 328/2021 at Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli. 5. The present petition concerns Crime No. 243/2021 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli. The complainant in the said case is Nishant Phuljhale, who, according to the material placed before this Court, is a friend/associate of persons connected with Respondent No. 10, Piyush Tiwari. The Petitioners contend that substantially the same members of the Lahre family, who had already been implicated in the earlier proceedings, were again made accused in the present case. 6. The Petitioners submit that the registration of Crime No. 243/2021 cannot be viewed in isolation. According to them, it forms part of the same continuing course of criminal proceedings which commenced with Crime No. 107/2019 and thereafter extended to various districts and police stations. The same family members were repeatedly implicated and were subjected to repeated 6 arrests and criminal proceedings. The Petitioners further submit that in Crime No. 243/2021, the accused persons were shown to have been arrested from "Jail" on 09.06.2021 and were subsequently granted bail on 28.10.2021. According to the Petitioners, the circumstances demonstrate that fresh criminal proceedings were initiated even while the accused were already in custody in connection with other cases, thereby frustrating the benefit of bail and keeping the Petitioners and their family members under continuous criminal pressure. The Petitioners also rely upon the official postings of Respondent No. 3, Arvind Kujur. According to the material placed before the Court, Respondent No. 3 was posted as AIG, CID, PHQ, Raipur from 01.01.2019 to 09.08.2020, thereafter as Superintendent of Police, Mungeli from 10.08.2020 to 02.07.2021 and subsequently as Superintendent of Police, Bemetara from 02.07.2021 to 04.12.2021. The Petitioners submit that several of the criminal proceedings were registered in the districts where Respondent No. 3 was holding senior police positions. The Petitioners further rely upon the subsequent inquiry conducted by a Special Investigation Team constituted by the police authorities. The SIT was constituted pursuant to complaints made by Petitioner No. 2 and others concerning the series of criminal cases. The SIT conducted an inquiry into the cases registered against the Petitioners. 7. The State, through the personal affidavit dated 08.08.2024 filed by 7 the Additional Superintendent of Police (Rural), Raipur, who was also the Officer-in-Charge of the connected matter in CRMP No. 1512/2024, placed the subsequent official developments before this Court. The affidavit records that, on the basis of the SIT inquiry, the Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range submitted a summary dated 30.06.2024 to the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, recording that all eight offences registered against the Petitioners were fabricated and also recording the complicity of Respondent No. 3, Arvind Kujur, in the episode concerning registration of the offences against the Petitioners in Districts Mungeli and Bemetara. The same affidavit specifically records that, in Crime No. 243/2021, the SIT found the concerned Investigating Officer to have acted negligently and that departmental proceedings had been ordered against him by the Superintendent of Police, Mungeli. The affidavit further records that chargesheet No. 374/2021 and supplementary chargesheet No. 1557/2024 had been filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The State affidavit further records that the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh had submitted a report to the State Government for institution of disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No. 3, Arvind Kujur, vide letter dated 08.07.2024. 8. The Petitioners contents that these subsequent official developments materially corroborate their allegation that the criminal proceedings were not independent and bona fide prosecutions but were part of a larger course of misuse of police 8 machinery. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that Crime No. 243/2021 is required to be examined in the backdrop of the entire sequence of criminal proceedings instituted against the Petitioners and their family members. It is submitted that the present FIR is not an isolated prosecution but one among eight criminal cases registered between 2019 and 2021, involving substantially the same accused persons. Learned counsel submits that the identity of the complainants in the successive cases is an important circumstance. In the earlier cases, Piyush Tiwari himself was the complainant, whereas in the subsequent proceedings the complainants included persons closely connected with him. In the present case, the complainant is Nishant Fulzele, who is stated to be a friend/associate of persons connected with Piyush Tiwari. According to learned counsel, this circumstance, when considered along with the repeated implication of the same family members, demonstrates a continuing pattern. 10. Learned counsel fairly submits that the mere fact that a complainant is known to Respondent No. 10 cannot, by itself, establish that the complaint is false. However, it is submitted that the relationship assumes significance when considered cumulatively with the repeated registration of FIRs, the same accused persons being repeatedly implicated, repeated arrests, 9 the geographical movement of the proceedings and, most importantly, the subsequent SIT findings. Learned counsel submits that the arrest of the Petitioners from "Jail" in Crime No. 243/2021 is particularly significant. It is contended that the record demonstrates that the Petitioners were already in custody in connection with other criminal proceedings and that they were thereafter shown arrested in the present case. According to learned counsel, the effect of such successive arrests was to frustrate the benefit of bail and to ensure that the Petitioners remained continuously entangled in criminal proceedings. 11. Learned counsel further submits that the proceedings arising from several of the connected cases either culminated in closure reports or were stayed by this Court. According to learned counsel, these subsequent developments cannot be treated as final findings in respect of the present case, but they are relevant surrounding circumstances demonstrating the extraordinary course of criminal prosecution faced by the Petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the most significant circumstance is the subsequent SIT inquiry conducted by the police authorities themselves. The State's own affidavit records that the SIT found all eight offences to be fabricated and also recorded complicity of Respondent No. 3, Arvind Kujur. Thus, according to learned counsel, the allegation of misuse of police machinery is no longer merely an allegation made by the accused persons. 10 12. Learned counsel further submits that the SIT specifically examined Crime No. 243/2021 and found negligence on the part of the Investigating Officer, pursuant to which departmental proceedings were ordered. It is submitted that the investigation resulting in the chargesheet in the present case has itself subsequently been subjected to adverse scrutiny by the competent police authorities. Learned counsel submits that Respondent No. 3 was holding senior police positions in Mungeli during the relevant period and that several of the cases against the Petitioners were registered in Mungeli during his tenure. Although posting by itself may not establish mala fide, the circumstance assumes significance because the State's own material records the complicity of Respondent No. 3 and the subsequent recommendation for disciplinary proceedings against him. Learned counsel submits that the present case therefore falls within the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly the category relating to proceedings manifestly attended with mala fide and proceedings instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance due to private or personal grudge. 13. Learned counsel submits that the Petitioners are not asking this Court to conduct a mini-trial or to appreciate disputed evidence. The prayer is founded upon the subsequent official material and undisputed chronology demonstrating that continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process. Learned counsel 11 accordingly prays that FIR/Crime No. 243/2021 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Mungeli, the chargesheet, the order framing charges and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom be quashed. 14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondents No. 10 and 11 opposes the petition made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the allegations of mala fide, personal vengeance and misuse of police machinery are denied. Learned counsel submits that the Petitioners are attempting to create a connection between several independent criminal cases merely because some of the accused persons are common. It is submitted that the existence of multiple FIRs cannot, by itself, establish a concerted design or a campaign engineered by Respondent No. 10. Learned counsel submits that the fact that the complainant in the present case was acquainted with or connected to Respondent No. 10 does not establish that the complaint was lodged at his instance. No material has been shown demonstrating that Respondent No. 10 instructed, instigated, financed or otherwise controlled the lodging of the present complaint. The complainant cannot be treated as a proxy merely because of his relationship or acquaintance with Respondent No. 10. 15. Learned counsel submits that repeated implication of the same accused persons in different cases also does not establish mala 12 fide. If the same persons were alleged to be involved in different incidents, their names could legitimately appear in more than one FIR. The Petitioners cannot infer fabrication merely from the repetition of names. 16. With regard to the arrests from "Jail", learned counsel submits that a person already in custody in one case can, subject to the procedure prescribed by law, be arrested in another case in which his involvement is alleged. Such arrest cannot automatically be characterised as an abuse of process or as an attempt to frustrate bail. Learned counsel further submits that the official postings of Respondent No. 3 cannot establish collusion between Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 10. The mere fact that an officer was posted in a particular district when an FIR was registered does not establish that the FIR was lodged at his instance or under his influence. 17. Learned counsel submits that the SIT report also cannot be treated as a binding adjudication against Respondent No. 10 or Respondent No. 11. It is contended that Respondent No. 10 was in custody when the inquiry was conducted and was not afforded a meaningful opportunity to participate in the inquiry, controvert the allegations or place his material before the SIT. Therefore, any adverse observation concerning him cannot be treated as conclusive. Learned counsel submits that the departmental proceedings against the Investigating Officer or Respondent No. 3 13 are matters between the police authorities and the concerned officers. Such proceedings cannot automatically invalidate an FIR or a chargesheet already filed before the competent criminal Court. It is further submitted that the fact that the SIT subsequently recorded that the cases were fabricated does not, by itself, constitute a judicial finding. The report is disputed and its evidentiary value would have to be assessed in appropriate proceedings. The criminal Court cannot quash the present prosecution solely on the basis of such disputed material. 18. Learned counsel further submits that the chargesheet has already been filed and the allegations are required to be tested during trial. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, ought not to conduct an appreciation of evidence or determine disputed questions of fact. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 19. We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned counsel appearing for Respondents No. 10 and 11, learned State counsel and have carefully perused the pleadings, documents and the material placed on record. 20. At the outset, this Court is conscious of the limited scope of interference under Section 482 CrPC. The inherent jurisdiction is extraordinary and is required to be exercised sparingly and cautiously. Ordinarily, this Court would not undertake appreciation of evidence, adjudicate disputed questions of fact or conduct a 14 mini-trial while considering a prayer for quashing of criminal proceedings. 21. At the same time, the inherent jurisdiction exists precisely to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The filing of a chargesheet does not create an absolute bar against exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC where subsequent circumstances of substantial and official character demonstrate that continuation of the prosecution itself would result in manifest injustice. 22. The governing principles have been authoritatively explained by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra). One of the recognised categories is a case where the 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 due to private and personal grudge. The categories enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra) are illustrative and not exhaustive. 23. In the present case, this Court is not examining Crime No. 243/2021 in isolation. The present prosecution forms part of a series of eight criminal cases instituted against the Petitioners and their family members between 2019 and 2021. Substantially the same members of the family were repeatedly implicated in those proceedings. 24. It is true that multiplicity of FIRs, by itself, does not establish mala 15 fide. Likewise, repetition of the names of accused persons in different criminal cases cannot, standing alone, lead to the conclusion that the proceedings are fabricated. The Court must, therefore, examine whether there are additional circumstances which transform an otherwise ordinary case into one warranting interference under Section 482 CrPC. 25. In this regard, the subsequent official inquiry assumes considerable significance. The personal affidavit dated 08.08.2024 filed by the Additional Superintendent of Police (Rural), Raipur, in the connected proceedings in CRMP No. 1512/2024 has been placed on record and specifically refers to the SIT inquiry into the eight criminal cases. The said affidavit records that, on the basis of the SIT report, the Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range submitted a summary dated 30.06.2024 to the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, recording that all eight offences registered against the Petitioners were fabricated and also recording complicity of Respondent No. 3, Arvind Kujur, in the episode relating to registration of the offences against the Petitioners in Districts Mungeli and Bemetara. 26. The importance of this material lies in the fact that the finding does not emanate merely from the Petitioners. It has been brought before the Court through the State's own affidavit filed by a senior police officer. Therefore, the Court is not being asked merely to accept an allegation of the Petitioners that the entire 16 series of prosecutions was fabricated. There is subsequent official material which substantially supports the allegation that serious irregularities occurred in the initiation and investigation of the criminal proceedings. The present case has an additional feature of particular importance. In respect of Crime No. 243/2021 itself, the State's affidavit records that the SIT found the concerned Investigating Officer to have acted negligently and that departmental proceedings were ordered against him by the Superintendent of Police, Mungeli. 27. This finding cannot be brushed aside merely because the chargesheet had already been filed. The very investigation upon which the present prosecution rests was subsequently examined by the police authorities and was found sufficiently deficient to warrant disciplinary action against the Investigating Officer. 28. This Court is not recording a final finding of misconduct against the Investigating Officer. The disciplinary proceedings shall take their own course in accordance with law. However, for the limited purpose of determining whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process, the subsequent official finding of negligent investigation in the very case before this Court is a highly relevant circumstance. 29. The Court also takes note of the fact that the complainants in the series of cases were not wholly unconnected with the original dispute. In the earlier cases, Piyush Tiwari himself was the 17 complainant, while in subsequent proceedings complaints were lodged by persons stated to be closely connected with him. In the present Crime No. 243/2021, the complainant is Nishant Phuljhale, who is stated to be his friend/associate. 30. This Court accepts the submission of learned counsel for Respondents No. 10 and 11 that such relationship, by itself, cannot establish that the complaint was false or that the complainant acted as a proxy. The Court is not drawing such an inference merely from the relationship. The relevance of this circumstance lies in its cumulative effect when considered with the repeated implication of substantially the same family members, the chronology of the cases, repeated arrests and, most importantly, the subsequent SIT findings. 31. The Court further finds relevance in the fact that the Petitioners were repeatedly subjected to arrest in the successive criminal proceedings. In Crime No. 243/2021, the record indicates arrest from "Jail" on 09.06.2021, followed by grant of bail on 28.10.2021. Standing alone, arrest from jail may not establish illegality or mala fide. However, in the peculiar factual background of the present case, it is a relevant surrounding circumstance demonstrating the continuing criminal pressure faced by the Petitioners. The Court also takes note of the status of the other connected cases. Some of the cases resulted in closure reports, while proceedings in certain cases were stayed by this Court. These developments are 18 not being treated as final findings that every allegation made in those cases was false. Nevertheless, they constitute relevant surrounding circumstances, particularly when read with the subsequent official inquiry recording that the eight offences were fabricated. 32. The objection regarding the SIT report also requires consideration. Learned counsel for Respondents No. 10 and 11 has submitted that Respondent No. 10 was in custody during the SIT inquiry and was not afforded an effective opportunity of hearing. 33. This Court is not treating the SIT report as a judicial adjudication or as conclusive proof of criminal liability of Respondent No. 10 or Respondent No. 11. The report is being considered only as subsequent official material relevant to the question whether continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process. The question of the ultimate evidentiary value or correctness of the SIT findings may be examined in appropriate proceedings. More importantly, the conclusion of this Court does not rest solely upon the SIT report. The Court has considered the cumulative effect of the official inquiry, the specific finding of negligent investigation in Crime No. 243/2021, the departmental proceedings directed against the Investigating Officer, the finding recorded regarding Respondent No. 3, the recommendation for disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No. 3, the repeated 19 criminal proceedings against substantially the same family members, the relationship of the successive complainants with Respondent No. 10 and the subsequent status of several connected cases. 34. The official affidavit further records that the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh submitted a report to the State Government for institution of disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No. 3, Arvind Kujur, vide letter dated 08.07.2024. Therefore, the allegation concerning misuse of police machinery has not remained merely an assertion by the Petitioners. It has received subsequent official consideration and resulted in administrative action. 35. This Court is conscious that the mere posting of Respondent No. 3 in Mungeli during the relevant period cannot establish collusion or mala fide. However, the allegation concerning his role acquires significance because the State's own affidavit records the SIT finding of his complicity in the episode relating to registration of offences against the Petitioners and also records the recommendation for disciplinary proceedings against him. 36. The present case, therefore, cannot be decided by examining each circumstance separately. The proper approach is to consider the cumulative effect of the circumstances emerging from the record. The relevant circumstances are: 20 i. Crime No. 243/2021 forms part of a series of eight criminal proceedings registered against the Petitioners and their family members between 2019 and 2021; ii. substantially the same members of the Petitioners' family were repeatedly implicated in the successive criminal proceedings; iii. Piyush Tiwari was the complainant in several of the earlier cases, while subsequent cases were instituted by persons stated to be closely connected with him; iv. the Petitioners were subjected to repeated criminal proceedings and arrests over a considerable period; v. in Crime No. 243/2021, the Petitioners were shown arrested from "Jail" on 09.06.2021; vi. several of the connected cases subsequently resulted in closure reports, while proceedings in certain other cases were stayed by this Court; vii. the police authorities themselves constituted an SIT to inquire into the series of criminal cases; viii. the State's own affidavit records that, on the basis of the SIT inquiry, all eight offences were found to be fabricated; ix. the SIT specifically found negligence in the investigation of Crime No. 243/2021 and departmental proceedings were directed against the concerned Investigating Officer; 21 x. the State's affidavit records complicity of Respondent No. 3, Arvind Kujur, in the episode concerning registration of the offences; and xi. the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh recommended initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No. 3. 37. No single circumstance, considered independently, would necessarily warrant quashing of the prosecution. The Court's conclusion is founded upon the cumulative effect of the aforesaid circumstances. Of particular significance is the fact that the subsequent official inquiry has not merely raised doubts concerning the general series of proceedings but has specifically recorded negligence in the investigation of Crime No. 243/2021 itself. 38. The Court is also mindful that the present petition cannot be converted into a trial concerning the truthfulness of the allegations made in the FIR. This Court is not determining whether every allegation in the FIR is factually false, nor is it examining the credibility of the complainant or witnesses. The question is narrower: whether, in view of the subsequent official material and the peculiar circumstances brought on record, compelling the Petitioners to undergo a criminal trial in the present case would amount to permitting the criminal process to be used for an improper purpose. 22 39. The present prosecution forms part of an extraordinary sequence of criminal proceedings against the same family, and the subsequent official inquiry has materially undermined the bona fides of that prosecution. The specific finding of negligent investigation in Crime No. 243/2021 assumes decisive significance. 40. The filing of the chargesheet in Crime No. 243/2021 does not compel the Court to shut its eyes to subsequent official developments. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC continues to remain available where subsequent material of substantial official character demonstrates that continuation of the prosecution would itself amount to abuse of process. 41. The facts of the present case are materially connected with those considered by this Court in CRMP No. 1512/2024. The affidavit filed by the State in the said proceedings is directly relevant to the present case because it specifically covers the eight criminal cases forming the factual background of the present petition and expressly records the SIT finding concerning Crime No. 243/2021. 42. Having regard to the entire factual matrix, this Court is satisfied that the present case falls within the principles recognised in Bhajan Lal (supra), particularly the category concerning criminal proceedings manifestly attended with mala fide and proceedings instituted or continued with an ulterior motive. 43. The Court reiterates that this conclusion is not based merely upon 23 the allegation of personal enmity, nor merely upon the existence of several FIRs, nor merely upon the relationship between the complainants and Respondent No. 10. The conclusion is based upon the cumulative effect of the subsequent official inquiry, the finding that the series of eight offences were fabricated, the specific finding of negligent investigation in Crime No. 243/2021, the consequential departmental proceedings against the Investigating Officer and the official findings concerning Respondent No. 3. 44. In these peculiar circumstances, permitting the Petitioners to undergo a full-fledged criminal trial would not advance the cause of justice. Rather, it would amount to permitting continuation of a prosecution whose very initiation and investigation have subsequently been seriously questioned by the competent police authorities themselves. 45. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Crime No. 243/2021, registered at Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471/34 of the IPC and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom, including Chargesheet No. 374/2021, Supplementary Chargesheet No. 1557/2024, the order framing charges and Criminal Case No.1557/2021 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli, are hereby quashed / set aside qua the present Petitioners. 24 46. So far as the other reliefs are concerned, the Petitioners are at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances, if so advised. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu