1 CGHC010392262024 2026:CGHC:36510-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3066 of 2024 Deepak Das Mahant @ Mahant Deepak Das S/o Shri Ramhans Das Aged About 37 Years Occupation - Sarvakar, Swami Radhakrishna Hanuman Jagannath Mandir, Komakhan, PS - Komakhan, Distt - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Accused) ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director Genneal Of Police Police Head Quarter, Deptt Of Home Affairs, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Collector Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Superintendent Of Police Mahasamund, Distt - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) Bagbahara, Tahsil - Bagbahara, Distt - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Tahsildar Bagbahara, Tahsil - Bagbahara, Distt - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 7 - The Station House Officer Police Station - Komakhan, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 8 - Smt. Anubha Singh Widow Of Late Dr. Thiyendra Pratap Singh Aged About 54 Years Village - Komakhan, Tah - Bagbahra, Distt - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. A.N. Bhakta and Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocates For State/ Respondent Nos.1 to 7 For Respondent No.8/ Complainant : : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate Mr. Shikhar Sharma, 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. A.N. Bhakta and Mr. Vivek Bhakta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/ respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and Mr. Shikhar Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.8. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers :- “1. allow this petition, 2. call for the entire records from the Courts below relating to the present case, 3. set-aside / quash order dated 06.06.2024 (ANN P- 3 1), and taking cognizance & framing of charges on 06.06.2024 (ANN P-14) by the learned Principal, Special Judge, Schedule Caste Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in Special Cr. Case No. 02/2024, State Vs Deepak Das Mahant. 4. Quash the FIR vide Crime No. 86/2022, Dated 27.02.2022 registered against the Petitioner at Police Station Komakhan, Distt. Mahasamund and also quash the final report U/s 173 CrPc and charge sheet dated 28.12.2022 punishable Under Section 294, 506 Part (II) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the Code of 1989), R/w. Section 3(2) (Va) & 3 (1) ( द ) (घ) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 (ANNEXURE P-11), filed against the Petitioner and Petitioner be discharged & acquitted from the charges, in the interest of justice. 5. pass any appropriate order under the facts and circumstances of the case, as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a disabled person and that the husband of respondent No. 8 was the King of the erstwhile Princely State of Komakhan, District Mahasamund. He further submits that the petitioner and his predecessors had been working as Sarvakar of the Temple in question, which had been given in charity. In the meanwhile, the husband of respondent No. 8 filed an application before respondent No. 5/Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) seeking a declaration of the Temple as a “Public Trust” under Section 4 of the Public Trust Act, 1951. The SDO passed an order dated 4 28.01.2022 in Revenue Case No. 1B/113/2020-21. Thereafter, the husband of respondent No. 8 served a notice dated 08.03.2022 upon the petitioner, directing him to vacate the Temple premises. Being aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner preferred Civil Suit No. H-4(A)/2022 on 14.03.2022 before the District Judge, Mahasamund. In the said civil suit, the learned District Judge granted interim protection in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 17.03.2022 and directed the parties to maintain status quo, which order was subsequently confirmed on 22.06.2022. Learned counsel further submits that, being annoyed by the said order, the husband of respondent No. 8 and his associates, by way of retaliation, lodged a false and fabricated complaint against the petitioner on 27.06.2022. Pursuant thereto, the police authorities, without conducting any preliminary inquiry, registered Crime No. 86/2022 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, a charge-sheet/final report was filed on 28.12.2022 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 294 and 506 Part-II of the IPC read with Sections 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(n)(/k) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner filed an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, along with written submissions, seeking his discharge from the aforesaid offences and specifically prayed before the 5 learned Trial Court to consider the grounds raised therein. However, the learned Trial Court failed to consider the grounds and submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner in their proper perspective and proceeded to take cognizance of the alleged offences and frame charges against the petitioner vide order dated 06.06.2024. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned criminal proceedings, including the order framing charges, are legally unsustainable and deserve to be quashed in the interest of justice. 4. Learned State counsel, per contra, opposes the petition and submits that the FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint disclosing cognizable offences and, after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner under Sections 294 and 506 Part-II of the IPC read with Sections 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(n)(/k) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The contention that the complaint was lodged as a counterblast to the pending civil dispute is a matter of defence, which cannot be adjudicated upon in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The pendency of a civil proceeding or an order of status quo does not, by itself, make the criminal prosecution false or mala fide. It is further submitted that the allegations and material collected during investigation disclose the commission of cognizable offences and, therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the basis of the petitioner's defence. Reliance is placed on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) 6 SCC 335, and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 8/complainant, while opposing the petition, submits that the allegations made against the petitioner are specific and disclose the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 294 and 506 Part-II of the IPC read with the relevant provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The contention of the petitioner that the complaint is false and has been lodged as a counterblast to the pending civil proceedings is wholly a matter of defence and cannot be adjudicated upon in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. The mere pendency of a civil dispute regarding the Temple or the interim order of status quo does not give the petitioner any immunity from criminal prosecution for an independent incident which allegedly occurred thereafter. The allegations in the complaint, coupled with the material collected during investigation and the charge-sheet filed by the police, prima facie disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court, upon consideration of the material available on record, has rightly framed charges against the petitioner vide order dated 06.06.2024. At this stage, this Hon'ble Court cannot undertake a detailed appreciation of the evidence or determine the truthfulness of the allegations. The defence of the petitioner, including the alleged motive of the complainant and the circumstances in which 7 the complaint was lodged, can properly be considered only during trial. Since the prosecution material raises sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner, no exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing the proceedings is made out. The petition is therefore misconceived and liable to be dismissed. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the genesis of the dispute between the parties lies in the rights and possession concerning the Temple premises, which is already the subject matter of Civil Suit No. H-4(A)/2022 pending before the learned District Judge, Mahasamund. 7. The petitioner had instituted the said civil proceedings immediately after the order dated 28.01.2022 and notice dated 08.03.2022 relating to the Temple premises, and the competent Civil Court, vide orders dated 17.03.2022 and 22.06.2022, directed the parties to maintain status quo. Thus, the dispute concerning the Temple and the rights of the respective parties is already seized of by the competent Civil Court. The criminal complaint was thereafter lodged on 27.06.2022, i.e. during the pendency of the said civil litigation. 8. In these circumstances, the subsequent criminal prosecution, arising out of the same underlying dispute between the parties, requires careful scrutiny so that the criminal process is not 8 permitted to become a means of exerting pressure in a dispute which is already pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court. 9. It is well settled that the mere pendency of civil proceedings is not, by itself, a ground to quash a criminal case; however, where the dispute is essentially civil in nature and the criminal proceedings are found to be a device to settle or pressurise the opposite party in the pending civil dispute, continuation of such proceedings may amount to abuse of the process of law. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Supreme Court recognized the power of the High Court to quash proceedings where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. The Supreme Court has reiterated this principle in S.N. Vijayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka, 2025 INSC 917, holding that although civil and criminal proceedings can ordinarily coexist where an element of criminality is disclosed, in the absence of criminality, permitting both proceedings to continue in respect of the same dispute may amount to abuse of the process of law. 10. In the present case, the existence of the pending civil litigation, the nature of the dispute concerning the Temple premises and the fact that the criminal proceedings came to be initiated during the pendency of the said civil proceedings, taken cumulatively, 9 persuade this Court that the parties should be permitted to agitate their substantive rights and entitlement before the competent Civil Court and that the criminal process ought not to be allowed to operate as a parallel mechanism for resolving the same underlying dispute. This Court is conscious that it cannot quash a criminal proceeding merely because a civil suit is pending; however, the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (528 of BNSS) is available to prevent abuse of the process of Court and to secure the ends of justice. 11. The Supreme Court in Anukul Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2025 INSC 1153, has reiterated that the criminal law cannot be permitted to be misused for settling scores arising out of a civil dispute and that proceedings may be quashed where their continuation would amount to abuse of process. 12. In view of the fact that the principal dispute between the parties is already pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court and, in the facts of the present case, continuation of the criminal proceedings would have the effect of permitting the criminal process to run parallel to and exert pressure in the pending civil dispute, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by permitting the prosecution to continue. 13. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No. 86/2022 registered at Police Station, Komakhan, District – Mahasamund, including the charge-sheet 10 dated 28.12.2022, the order dated 06.06.2024 framing charges and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioner are hereby quashed. The petitioner is accordingly discharged from the aforesaid offences. 14. It is made clear that this order shall not affect the rights and contentions of the parties in the pending civil proceedings, which shall be decided by the competent Civil Court independently and in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra