1 CGHC010321242026 2026:CGHC:36225 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2166 of 2026 1 - Anurag Agrawal S/o Vijay Agrawal Aged About 36 Years R/o- Bhatagaon Chowk, P.S.- Tikrapara, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Sujit Agrawal S/o Omprakash Agrawal Aged About 48 Years R/o Near Utsav Medical Store, Radha Swami Nagar, P.S.- Purani Basti, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Vijay Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Pwan Kumar Agrawal Aged About 69 Years R/o Bhatagaon Chowk, P.S.- Tikrapara, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Khilawan Dhivar S/o Kejuram Dhivar Aged About 45 Years R/o Behind Sahu Complex, Prem Nagar, Mowa, P.S.- Pandri, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S.- Tikrapara, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Md. Ruhul Ameen Memon, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. A.G. For Complainant : Mr. Lokesh Garg (In person) Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.08.25 22:04:57 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14/08/2026 1. The present petition is taken up for hearing along with CRMP No. 2150 of 2026 (Lokesh Garg v. State of Chhattisgarh and another), CRR No. 971 of 2026 (XYZ v. State of Chhattisgarh and another) and CONTR No. 3 of 2026 (Office Reference v. Lokesh Garg). Since all the cases are arising out of the FIR registered at Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur bearing Crime No. 10/2020 lodged by the complainant Anurag Agrawal and Crime No. 11/2020, lodged by the complainant Lokesh Garg, all the aforesaid petitions and contempt reference are being heard and decided together. In CRMP No. 2166 of 2026, which is arising out of Crime No. 11/2020, the complainant Lokesh Garg appeared and made his submissions along with other connected petitions and contempt reference. 2. The petitioners have filed the present criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for the following reliefs:- “A. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 30.03.2026 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), Criminal Case No. 32/2022, wherein charges have been framed under Sections 294, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code 1860, against all applicants. B. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the charge sheet/detail, framed on 3 dated 30.03.2026 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Criminal Case No. 32/2022, wherein charges have been framed under Sections 294, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code 1860, against all applicants. C. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present petition (Note: "application" changed to "petition") and discharge the present applicants for charges framed against them on the basis of final report produced by the prosecution, under Sections 294, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code 1860, against all applicants, by Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), Criminal Case No. 32/2022. D. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order as it may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 3. The case of the petitioner, in substance, is that he resides near Bhathagaon Chowk and is engaged in LIC work. He was undertaking construction of an additional room over his residential premises. According to the petitioner, the house of complainant Lokesh Garg is adjacent to his house and, on account of the construction activity, he and his son Sameep Garg had been frequently quarrelling with and abusing him over trivial issues. On 04.01.2020 at about 10:00 a.m., while the petitioner was carrying out construction work through his labourers, the complainant and his son allegedly came outside their house, abused him in filthy and offensive language, objected to the construction activity and threatened to kill them. It is further alleged that they waved an iron rod while extending the threat and thereafter left the spot. The petitioners claim that the incident was witnessed 4 and heard by Sujeet Agrawal, his labourer Khilawan and Arun Tripathi. On these allegations, the FIR has been registered, and the charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present FIR is a counterblast to FIR No. 10/2020 lodged by petitioner No.1 against the complainant Lokesh Garg and his son on the very same date, i.e. 04.01.2020, arising out of the same neighbourhood dispute. It is submitted that the complainant and the petitioners are neighbours having their houses separated by a common wall and that a dispute had already arisen between them in relation to the construction raised by the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the complainant had earlier instituted Civil Suit No.57/2019 before the District Judge, Raipur, seeking injunction and demolition of the alleged illegal construction, which came to be dismissed, as the construction was found to be on the petitioners' own premises and the complainant had no cause of action. It is further submitted that, after dismissal of the civil suit, the relations between the parties became strained and the complainant had, on several occasions, attempted to quarrel with the petitioners, leading even the father of the petitioner No. 1 to lodge a complaint against him in the year 2019. 5. It is further submitted that on 04.01.2020, when the petitioners had already lodged FIR No.10/2020 against the complainant and his son at Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, the complainant, with a view to retaliate and exert pressure upon the petitioners, lodged the impugned FIR bearing Crime No.11/2020 against them and a family member/friend, alleging substantially the same occurrence. The petitioners submit that the prosecution story is 5 inherently doubtful and has been set up as a counter-case arising from the pre-existing civil and neighbourhood dispute. It is also submitted that, after investigation, the police filed charge-sheet No.148/2020 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, on 05.09.2020, for the offence under Sections 294, 506/34 of IPC. 6. He would submit that the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 30.03.2026, has mechanically framed charges against the petitioners under Sections 294, 506 and 34 of the IPC, despite the fact that the allegations are not supported by the material collected during investigation and are contrary to the contents of the final report dated 05.09.2020. It is submitted that the prosecution case rests substantially upon the statements of the complainant and his two sons, whereas no independent witness has been cited or examined, though the alleged incident is stated to have occurred at about 10:00 a.m. at an open public place/common road. Learned counsel would further submit that one of the sons of the complainant, namely Keshav Garg, was not even present in the city on the date of the alleged occurrence, while the statement of the other son, Sameep Garg, though allegedly present at the spot, was recorded only on 01.03.2020, after an unexplained delay. It is thus argued that the material collected during investigation contains material inconsistencies, omissions and discrepancies vis-à-vis the FIR and the statements of the witnesses, which render the prosecution version doubtful even at the stage of consideration of charge. 7. Learned counsel would further submit that the impugned criminal proceedings are essentially an offshoot of the existing civil and neighbourhood dispute between the parties relating to construction of the 6 petitioners' house, and the present FIR was lodged as a counterblast after the petitioners had already lodged an FIR against the complainant and his son on the same date. It is submitted that the petitioners had also made complaints against the complainant regarding his conduct and use of abusive language, but no action was taken thereon. Learned counsel would contend that the petitioners have produced CCTV footage of the alleged incident dated 04.01.2020 before the Trial Court, which clearly demonstrates that they had not committed the acts alleged in the FIR. It is, therefore, argued that the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the material available on record and mechanically framed the charges, which are unsustainable in law. On these grounds, the petitioners seek quashing of the impugned FIR, Charge Sheet, order of framing charge dated 30.03.2026 and Proceedings of Criminal Case No. 32/2022, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the submissions and would submit that there is sufficient prima facie evidence against the petitioner to proceed with the trial of the case and no relief of quashing of FIR, Charge Sheet or the proceedings of criminal case can be granted in favour of the petitioners, and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Mr. Lokesh Garg, complainant present in person submits that the allegations are confined to Sections 294, 506 and 34 of the IPC and do not disclose any offence having a serious impact upon society at large. It is argued that the prosecution has arisen from the continuing civil and residential dispute between the neighbouring parties and the existence of Crime No. 10/2020 and Crime No. 11/2020 demonstrates the cross-version nature of the 7 occurrence. He also places reliance upon the subsequent proceedings before the Division Bench of this Court and submits that the parties were permitted to seek quashing of the cross-cases so that the dispute could be brought to an end comprehensively. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 11. At the outset, it is well settled that the power of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, though extraordinary in nature, is intended to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has illustratively enumerated the categories of cases in which such power can be exercised, including cases where the allegations, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence, where the uncontroverted allegations and the material collected during investigation do not disclose commission of any offence, and where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and instituted with an ulterior motive. The aforesaid principles have also been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sajal Bose v. State of West Bengal, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 525, while specifically observing that the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra) continue to guide the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 12. It is equally well settled that, at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence as would be undertaken at the stage of trial; however, the Court is required to satisfy 8 itself as to whether the material placed on record discloses the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged and whether there exists sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Another, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the satisfaction of the Court regarding the existence of the constituents of the offence and the facts leading to such offence is a sine qua non for framing of charge. 13. Similarly, in Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 368 it has been held that the Court is not expected to act merely as a post office or mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities etc. however, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. 14. In the present case, on a careful consideration of the FIR, the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation and the other material forming part of the charge-sheet, we find that the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 294 of the IPC are not prima facie made out. The allegation is essentially that the petitioners used filthy and abusive language. However, the specific words allegedly uttered by the petitioners have not been brought on record in a manner sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement of obscenity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.S. Madhanagopal and Another v. K. Lalitha, (2022) 17 SCC 818, has categorically held that mere abusive, humiliating or defamatory words, by themselves, do not attract Section 294(b) IPC and that mere utterance of 9 alleged obscene words is not sufficient unless there is material to establish the requisite element of annoyance. The relevant observation in this regard reads as under: 8. It has to be noted that in the instance case, the absence of words which will involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or words cannot attract the offence under Section 294(b). None of the records disclose the alleged words used by the accused. It may not be the requirement of law to reproduce in all cases the entire obscene words if it is lengthy, but in the instant case, there is hardly anything on record. Mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294(b) IPC. 9. To prove the offence under Section 294 IPC mere utterance of obscene words are not sufficient but there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in the case. No one has spoken about the obscene words, they felt annoyed and in the absence of legal evidence to show that the words uttered by the appellant-accused annoyed others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) IPC is made out. 15. The said principle has recently been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 10 (2026) 2 SCC 622, wherein it was held that even if the allegations are taken to be true, in the absence of the necessary ingredients of Section 294 IPC, the accused cannot be put to trial for such offence. 16. So far as the offence under Section 506 of the IPC is concerned, the allegation is that the petitioners threatened the complainant and his family members with dire consequences. However, the material placed before us does not disclose with sufficient specificity the nature and manner of the alleged threat attributable to each of the petitioners, nor does it disclose the requisite intention to cause alarm. In Om Prakash Ambadkar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to Mohammad and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2023) 20 SCC 219, has reiterated that an offence of criminal intimidation requires, inter alia, a threat of injury coupled with the requisite intention to cause alarm to the person threatened. The mere use of the expression that the accused threatened to kill, without the necessary material demonstrating the ingredients of criminal intimidation, cannot by itself justify continuation of the prosecution. 17. Another significant circumstance which cannot be ignored is that the prosecution arises out of a long-standing neighbourhood dispute between the parties relating to construction of the petitioners' premises. The record placed before us indicates that a civil suit had already been instituted by the complainant in relation to the construction and that petitioner No.1 had lodged FIR No.10/2020 against the complainant and his son on the very same date on which the impugned FIR bearing Crime No.11/2020 came to be registered. The chronology of events, therefore, assumes significance while examining the plea of the petitioners that the impugned prosecution is 11 a counterblast arising out of the pre-existing dispute. Though the existence of a civil dispute by itself would not be sufficient to quash a criminal prosecution, when such circumstance is considered cumulatively with the absence of independent witnesses, the inconsistencies appearing from the material collected during investigation, the delayed recording of the statements of the witnesses and the other circumstances noticed hereinabove, the possibility of the criminal proceedings having been initiated with an ulterior motive cannot be brushed aside. 18. We also find considerable force in the submission regarding the CCTV footage of the alleged occurrence. The petitioners have specifically pleaded that the CCTV footage was produced before the learned Trial Court and that the same forms part of the material placed before the Court. In this regard, the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sajal Bose (supra) assumes significance. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where CCTV footage forms part of the material collected during investigation and is of unimpeachable provenance, the same constitutes a material piece of evidence directly relevant to the question whether a prima facie case is made out. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that where such electronic evidence materially undermines the prosecution case, the High Court is required to give due and independent consideration to the same while exercising its inherent jurisdiction. 19. In the present case also, the CCTV footage is not a piece of evidence introduced for the first time as a private defence document, but is stated to have been placed before the learned Trial Court during the proceedings. When such material is considered along with the prosecution material itself, 12 the allegations against the petitioners become highly doubtful. The prosecution case is substantially based upon the statements of the complainant and his family members, whereas no independent witness has been cited despite the alleged occurrence having taken place at about 10:00 a.m. at an open/common place. The statement of Sameep Garg, who is stated to have been present at the spot, was recorded after considerable delay, whereas Keshav Garg is stated to have not been present in the city on the date of occurrence. These circumstances, taken cumulatively, materially weaken the prosecution case at the very threshold. 20. It is also pertinent that the prosecution case against all the petitioners is sought to be sustained with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC. However, the material placed before us does not disclose any clear and specific circumstance demonstrating the meeting of minds or common intention of the petitioners in commission of the alleged offences. The mere fact that the petitioners are sought to be implicated in the same occurrence cannot, in the absence of material disclosing the requisite common intention, by itself justify application of Section 34 IPC. 21. The present case, therefore, is not one where this Court is required to undertake a roving appreciation of evidence or to determine the ultimate truthfulness of the prosecution witnesses. On the contrary, even upon taking the prosecution allegations and the material collected during investigation at their face value, the essential ingredients of the offences alleged are not satisfactorily disclosed. The infirmities noticed above are not isolated discrepancies which can be conveniently left for consideration at the conclusion of trial; rather, they go to the very foundation of the prosecution 13 case. The circumstances of the pre-existing dispute, the counter FIR, the absence of independent corroboration, the material inconsistencies in the prosecution version and, particularly, the CCTV footage forming part of the record, cumulatively demonstrate that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. 22. The facts of the present case, therefore, fall within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), particularly the categories where the allegations and the material collected do not disclose the commission of the offences alleged and where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and instituted with an ulterior motive. The principles reiterated in Sajal Bose (supra), are also attracted, inasmuch as the electronic material forming part of the record materially undermines the prosecution version and there is no sufficient credible material connecting the petitioners with the alleged offences. 23. Consequently, we are of the considered opinion that permitting the petitioners to undergo the rigours of a criminal trial on the basis of the material presently available on record would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The impugned order dated 30.03.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, framing charges against the petitioners under Sections 294, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, therefore, cannot be sustained. 24. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.03.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No.32/2022, whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners under Sections 294, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal 14 Code, 1860, is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the charge- sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No.11/2020, Police Station Tikrapara, District Raipur, insofar as they relate to the present petitioners, are also quashed. The petitioners stand discharged from the aforesaid offences. 25. Any pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved