1 CGHC010317672026 2026:CGHC:36458-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2142 of 2026 Naimuddin Firdousi S/o Late Sheikh Habibulla Aged About 74 Years R/o House No. 102, Vivekanand Ward No. 35, Beside Nagar Nigam Complex Deviganj Road Perfect Leather World Shop, Thana Ambikapur, District- Sarguja Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station- Ambikapur Kotwali, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh 2. Umeshwar Singh Baaj Aged About 42 Years Presently Posted As Tehsildar Tehsil Ambikapur, Ambikapur District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Waquar Naiyer, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Waquar Naiyer, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.08.17 18:23:03 +0530 2 Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition and quash the F.I.R. Dated 27.09.2024& Charge-sheet Dated 29.01.2026 in crime No.657/2024 for the offence under section 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 238,111, 341(1) & 342(2) of 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 238,111, 341(1) & 342(2) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Ambikapur, Sarguja and, further quash Order Dated 31.01.2026 taking cognizance in crime 0.657/2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur Dist Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, further to quash Order Dated 22.06.2026 whereby the learned trail rejected the petitioner application for Discharge under section 250 of BNSS passed by the Learned 1st Additional Session Judge, Ambikapur Sarguja, Chhattisgarh in Session case no. 60/2026. Further to quash Order Dated 22.06.2026 passed by the Learned 1st Additional Session Judge, Ambikapur Sarguja, Chhattisgarh in Session case no. 60/2026 whereby the learned trail court put the charges under section 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 238,111, 341(1) & 342(2) of 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 238,111, 341(1) & 342(2) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 on the present petitioner and initiated the trail against the petitioner, so far as it relates to the petitioner herein, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 3 3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the present case despite the fact that he himself is a victim of the fraud allegedly perpetrated by the principal accused, namely, Dastagir. It is submitted that the genesis of the prosecution lies in the alleged fabrication of an order dated 20.10.2021 purportedly passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in Revenue Case No. R.N./16/R/A-6/272/2021 concerning land bearing Khasra No. 136/9, admeasuring 0.097 hectare, situated at Village Mayapur, Tahsil Ambikapur. He further contended that the petitioner had initially approached the Tehsildar, Ambikapur seeking mutation and recording of his name in the revenue records in respect of the aforesaid land on the basis of an unregistered sale deed. The said application was rejected by the Tehsildar vide order dated 03.10.2019. During the pendency of the revenue proceedings, the petitioner came into contact with the principal accused Dastagir, who represented himself to be an advocate having expertise in revenue matters and regularly appearing before the Board of Revenue. On such representation, Dastagir assured the petitioner that he would resolve the petitioner's mutation-related dispute and, in that process, obtained a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- from the petitioner towards purported legal fees. 4. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that, thereafter, Dastagir himself filed an application for mutation before the Tehsildar, Ambikapur on 22.01.2022, placing reliance upon the purported order dated 20.10.2021 allegedly passed by the Board of Revenue in the aforesaid revenue case. The prosecution case itself is that the said order was 4 fabricated by Dastagir. The petitioner had neither participated in the preparation or fabrication of the said document nor had any knowledge that the order relied upon by Dastagir was not a genuine order passed by the Board of Revenue. He further pointed out that, acting upon the said order, the Tehsildar, Ambikapur ultimately passed an order dated 18.04.2022 whereby the name of the petitioner came to be mutated in the revenue records. The circumstances, therefore, clearly demonstrate that the petitioner was the beneficiary only in the limited sense that his pending revenue dispute was sought to be resolved by Dastagir, who had undertaken to assist him in the proceedings. There is no material to establish that the petitioner was aware of the alleged fabrication or that he had participated in procuring or using any forged order with the requisite criminal intention. 5. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that the subsequent inquiry conducted by the revenue authorities itself assumes considerable significance. During the inquiry into the purported orders of the Board of Revenue concerning permission under Section 165 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, it came to light that in several cases no such orders had in fact been passed by the Board of Revenue. The investigation thereafter revealed the alleged modus operandi of the principal accused Dastagir, who is stated to have fabricated orders of the Board of Revenue in several cases and obtained substantial amounts from various persons by representing himself as capable of securing favourable orders in their revenue matters. He urged that the material collected during investigation does not disclose any 5 independent role attributable to the present petitioner in the alleged fabrication of the order dated 20.10.2021. On the contrary, the material indicates that Dastagir was the person who dealt with the revenue proceedings, represented himself as an advocate, received money from the petitioner and thereafter relied upon the fabricated order before the Tehsildar. The petitioner, being a 74-year-old person, had acted upon the representation of Dastagir and had no reason to suspect that the document produced by him before the revenue authority was fabricated. 6. Learned Senior Advocate also places reliance upon the fact that, in his own memorandum, the principal accused Dastagir has admitted that the order of the Board of Revenue was fabricated by him. Such material, according to the petitioner, substantially supports his case that the fabrication was attributable to Dastagir and that the petitioner was not a participant in the same. The prosecution has not brought on record any material showing that the petitioner had instructed Dastagir to fabricate the order, had knowledge of its fabricated nature, or had entered into any agreement or conspiracy with him for obtaining or using such fabricated document. He further submitted that mere benefit accruing to the petitioner as a consequence of an act committed by another person cannot, in the absence of the requisite knowledge and criminal intent, make the petitioner criminally liable for the acts of such person. The fact that the petitioner's name was subsequently mutated on the basis of the purported order cannot by itself constitute evidence of his participation in fabrication, particularly when the prosecution case itself attributes the creation of the forged order to Dastagir. 6 7. Learned Senior Advocate further stated that the petitioner had already approached the competent Court seeking protection and, considering the circumstances of the case, anticipatory bail was granted to him vide order dated 30.04.2025 in MCRCA No. 614/2025. The grant of anticipatory bail, coupled with the material collected during investigation, is relied upon to submit that the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offence is, at best, sought to be inferred merely from the fact that his name was mutated on the basis of the fabricated order, without there being any substantive material demonstrating his conscious participation in the alleged offences. 8. It is thus submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that the charge-sheet does not contain any cogent or prima facie material connecting the petitioner with the preparation, fabrication or procurement of the alleged forged order of the Board of Revenue. There is no material indicating that the petitioner had knowledge of the alleged forgery at the relevant time or that he had acted in furtherance of any common intention or conspiracy with Dastagir. Rather, the circumstances emerging from the prosecution material are consistent with the petitioner's specific case that he had entrusted Dastagir with the task of pursuing his revenue dispute after paying him Rs.4,50,000/- as purported legal fees and that he himself was deceived by the acts of the principal accused. 9. On these facts, it is contended that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to subjecting a 7 person, who himself appears to have been deceived by the principal accused, to a criminal prosecution in the absence of the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. The learned Senior Advocate, therefore, submits that the learned trial Court has erred in rejecting the petitioner's application seeking discharge and that the material available on record does not disclose sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner. 10. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the petition. It is submitted that the present petition essentially seeks appreciation and re-assessment of the material collected during investigation, which is impermissible in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Learned State counsel submits that the FIR was registered on the basis of the inquiry conducted by the revenue authorities and that, during investigation, material was collected which disclosed the involvement of the petitioner in the acts forming the subject matter of the prosecution. The fact that the petitioner ultimately obtained mutation of his name on the basis of the purported order of the Board of Revenue, according to the learned State counsel, cannot be examined in isolation at this stage. 11. Learned State counsel further submits that the explanation offered by the petitioner that he was unaware of the fabricated nature of the order is a matter of defence and its truthfulness or otherwise can be determined only after the evidence is led before the learned trial Court. The prosecution has already completed investigation and filed the 8 charge-sheet before the competent Court. Cognizance has been taken and charges have already been framed against the petitioner. Therefore, at this stage, this Court ought not to enter into disputed questions of fact or examine the evidentiary worth of the material collected by the Investigating Officer. It is accordingly submitted that no exceptional circumstance has been made out warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. 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. (now Section 528 of the BNSS). 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors reported in 2000 SCC 9 (Cri) 615, the Supreme Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 15. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has authoritatively settled the scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the BNSS). The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the power to quash criminal proceedings is required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the rarest of rare cases. It has been categorically observed that while considering a prayer for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR, nor can it appreciate the evidence or conduct a mini trial. The Court is only required to examine whether the allegations, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court further emphasized that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the threshold, that 10 investigation into cognizable offences should ordinarily be permitted to proceed unhindered, and that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with great caution and self- restraint, save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in manifest miscarriage of justice. 16. Very recently, in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid principles and further held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS), the High Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact or evaluate the evidentiary worth of the material collected during investigation. The Court reaffirmed the test laid down in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor and observed that criminal proceedings can be quashed at the threshold only when the material relied upon by the accused is of sterling and impeccable quality, completely demolishes the prosecution case, remains incapable of being refuted by the prosecution, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. Unless all these parameters are cumulatively satisfied, the High Court ought not to interfere in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, leaving the parties to establish their respective cases before the trial Court in accordance with law. 17. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, this 11 Court finds that the FIR contains allegations which require consideration against the petitioner in the context of the material collected during investigation. The Investigating Officer, after conducting the investigation, collected material in support of the prosecution case and, finding sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner, submitted the charge-sheet before the competent Court. Thereafter, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session, where charges have already been framed against the petitioner. 18. The principal submission of the petitioner is that he was himself a victim of the alleged fraud committed by Dastagir, that he had paid Rs.4,50,000/- to Dastagir towards legal fees and that he had no knowledge that the order dated 20.10.2021 relied upon in the mutation proceedings was fabricated. The petitioner has also relied upon the alleged admission of Dastagir and the subsequent conduct of the revenue authorities. However, whether the petitioner was in fact unaware of the fabricated nature of the order, whether he had knowledge of the acts committed by Dastagir, and whether the material collected during investigation is sufficient to establish his participation or knowledge are all matters which require appreciation of evidence. 19. At this stage, this Court cannot enter into an appreciation of the evidentiary value of the defence material relied upon by the petitioner or record any finding on the correctness of his explanation. The contention that the petitioner was merely a victim and had no knowledge of the fabrication constitutes a defence which cannot be conclusively 12 adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. Determination of such disputed questions of fact would necessarily involve examination of the witnesses and appreciation of the documentary and other evidence collected during investigation, which would amount to conducting a mini trial, an exercise impermissible in the present proceedings. 20. It is also significant that the investigation has already culminated in filing of the charge-sheet, cognizance has been taken and charges have already been framed against the petitioner. At this stage, the petitioner would have an adequate opportunity to raise all his factual and legal defences before the learned Trial Court and to demonstrate, on the basis of the evidence led during trial, that he had no knowledge of or participation in the alleged fabrication. 21. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika (supra) and Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not fall within the exceptional category warranting interference under Section 528 of the BNSS. The material relied upon by the petitioner cannot, at this stage, be held to be of such sterling and impeccable quality as would completely demolish the prosecution case. The defence sought to be raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted at this stage so as to terminate the criminal proceedings at the threshold. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the ultimate merits of the allegations against the petitioner. The observations made herein are 13 confined to the question as to whether the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS ought to be exercised at this stage. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all such grounds and defences before the learned Trial Court, which shall consider the same in accordance with law and on the basis of the evidence brought on record, without being influenced by any observation made in the present order. 22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is made out. The investigation has culminated in filing of the charge-sheet and charges have already been framed against the petitioner. At this stage, this Court finds no justification to interdict the criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. 23. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not influence the learned trial Court while deciding the Sessions Case on its own merits and in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan