1 CGHC010316302026 2026:CGHC:37023-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2175 of 2026 Aniket Masih, aged 33 Years S/o Ravi Kant Masih, at Ward No. 14, Behind High School Chowki Siliyari, P.S. Dharsiwa, District Raipur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through P S. Dharsiwa, District Raipur CG. 2 - John Francis Masih, aged 68 years, S/o Late Yonatan Masih. 3 - Kumari Vinni Masih, aged 36 years, D/o John Francis Masih Both At.- Village Siliyari, House No. 699, Chowki, Siliyari, PS Dharsiwa, District Raipur CG. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Pragalbh Sharma, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 19/08/2026 1 Heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Anusha Naik, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Praglabh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 & 3. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2 By this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNSS), the petitioner seeks quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 29.07.2026, the criminal proceedings pending in Sessions Trial No. 280/26 pending before the Court of Hon'ble 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, charge-sheet bearing No. 32/25 dated 22.02.2025 under Sections 294, 323, 506B, 307 of IPC and the FIR bearing Crime No. 146/2023 dated 08.04.2023 registered at Police Station, Dharsiwa, Raipur, for offence under Sections 294, 323, 506(B) of IPC. 3 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner is the cousin brother of respondent No. 2 and nephew of respondent No. 1 and there were prolonged property disputes in existence between respondent No. 2 (petitioner's uncle) and petitioner's father. Adhering to such property disputes, respondent No. 2 and petitioner's father Ravi Kant Masih have lodged several rival complaints against each other and even a civil dispute is pending before the Court of Civil Judge Class-II Raipur. 4 On the alleged date of incident, due to property dispute, an altercation took place between the parties and according to the FIR, the petitioner assaulted respondent No. 03 due to which she sustained injuries over her jaw. The said incident was reported on the next day i.e. 07.04.2023 before Chowki Siliyari of Police Station, Dharsiwa adhering to which an FIR on zero crime number 3 for the offence under Sections 294, 323, 506B of IPC was registered against the petitioner. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the trial Court concerned. 5 Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the charge-sheet, it is apparent that the respondent No. 03 was examined on 06.04.2023 by Medical Officer of CHC, Dharsiwa who clearly had opined the injuries to be simple one but later on being queried by the concerned Police Station, the same was opined as grievous injury but in reply to query report, the concerned doctor who examined the said respondent had clearly submitted his opinion that the injuries were not on the vital part of the body. During course of investigation, respondent No. 1 adhering to the aforementioned query added offence under Section 307 of the IPC and later on after, culmination of investigation the investigating agency, without making proper investigation while declaring the petitioner to be an absconder, filed the charge-sheet before the concerned Magistrate. As per the knowledge of the petitioner and from perusal of relevant records, it is apparent that no proclamation proceeding under section 80 of the Cr.P.C was initiated against the petitioner. 6 Mr. Mishra further submits that as there is a long lasting property dispute existing between the parties and their family members therefore the family members of both intervened into the dispute 4 and after such intervention, the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement to resolve all their disputes and now the disputes between the parties have been finally resolved. The aforesaid amicable settlement between the parties has taken place without any undue influence, threat or coercion and adhering to the compromise, the private respondents also desire not to prosecute the petitioner but because the offence under Section 307 IPC is not compoundable, as such, the petitioner has approached before this Hon'ble Court for quashing of the charge- sheet and other ancillary proceedings. The dispute between the parties is purely of private nature and further the injuries sustained by the injured i.e., respondent No. 3 was over non-vital part and no deadly weapon was used even there was no overt act on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, considering the nature of the injuries and further the amicable settlement between the parties, the criminal prosecution against the petitioner may kindly be quashed as both the parties after amicable settlement are leading a peaceful life. In such situation, continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. In support of his contentions, Mr. Mishra places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh & Anr v. State of Punjab & Anr {(2014) 6 SCC 466} and Naushey Ali vs State of U.P. {2025 INSC 182}. 7 On the other hand, Ms. Anusha Naik, learned Deputy Government 5 Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that on the complaint made by the respondent No. 2, when prima facie it was found that a cognizable offence is made out, the Police has registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The charge sheet has already been filed, the learned trial Court has also taken cognizance of the matter and the matter was fixed for argument before framing of charges today itself before the learned trial Court. There has been substantial progress in the case and as such, at this stage, no interference is warranted. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in cases where the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law or where interference is otherwise necessary to secure the ends of justice. The petitioner may raise all the objections and pleas before the learned trial Court concerned. 8 Mr. Pragalbh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 submits that the dispute between the parties originally arose out of a private domestic and property dispute. However, with the active intervention and counsel of respected family members, the parties have arrived at a complete and amicable settlement to resolve all existing disputes. The respondents do not wish to carry on with the prosecution or adduce any evidence against the petitioner in the ongoing criminal proceedings and the 6 respondents have no objection if this Hon’ble Court pleases to allow this petition. 9 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the materials available on record. 10 The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal 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. 11 In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others {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 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has 7 emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 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 merits. In a well-celebrated judgment reported in State of Haryana & Others v Bhajanlal & Others, {AIR 1992 SC 604} the Apex Court has laid down certain guidelines and held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 12 Though the private respondents have stated that they have entered into an amicable settlement with the petitioner and do not wish to pursue the prosecution, the fact remains that the petitioner is facing prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, which is a serious and non-compoundable offence. The questions raised by the petitioner regarding the nature and gravity of the injuries sustained by respondent No. 3, the opinion of the Medical Officer, the alleged absence of any injury on a vital part of the body, the manner in which the offence under Section 307 of the IPC came to be added, and the alleged declaration of the petitioner as an absconder are all matters which require appreciation of the material collected during investigation and cannot appropriately be adjudicated upon in exercise of the limited inherent jurisdiction of this Court. It is also not in dispute that the charge-sheet has already been filed, cognizance has been taken by the learned Trial Court and the matter has reached 8 the stage of consideration of the question of framing of charges. The petitioner would have an efficacious opportunity to raise all his objections and contentions before the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage. The mere fact that the dispute between the parties has subsequently been amicably settled, though relevant for consideration in an appropriate case, by itself does not warrant quashing of the criminal proceedings when the prosecution has already progressed to the stage of consideration of charge and the allegations disclose commission of a cognizable and serious offence. 13 Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions, the present petition is dismissed. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the pleas and objections available to him, including those relating to the nature of injuries, applicability of Section 307 of the IPC, the medical opinion, the alleged defects in investigation and the effect of the compromise, before the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage. The learned Trial Court shall consider such pleas strictly in accordance with law and uninfluenced by any observation made in this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra