1 CGHC010310732026 2026:CGHC:36461-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2152 of 2026 1. Onkar Sahu S/o Shri Shyam Lal Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Punarvas Laat, Police Station Chhal, District Raigarh, C.G. 2. Ishwar Lal Sahu S/o Shri Chhote Lal Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Punarvas Laat, Police Station Chhal, District Raigarh, C.G. 3. Dhamendra Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Chhannu Lal Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Chandrashekharpur Eddu, Police Station Chhal, District Raigarh. C.G. 4. Chain Singh Sarthi S/o Shri Bhagat Ram Sarthi Aged About 32 Years R/o Chandrashekharpur Eddu, Police Station Chhal District Raigarh. C.G. 5. Teejram Rathia S/o Late Harihar Rathia, Aged About 40 Years R/o Chanrashekharpur Eddu. Police Station Chhal, District Raigarh. C.G. 6. Chunnilal Sahu S/o Shri Bhagatram Sarthi Aged About 35 Years R/o Punarvas Laat, Police Station Chhal, District Raigarh. C.G. 7. Ajay Das Mahant, S/o Shri Mangal Das Mahant Aged About 36 Years R/o Punarvas Laat, Police Station Chhal, District Raigarh. C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, New Mantralaya, Atal Naar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur C.G. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.08.19 10:44:01 +0530 2 2. The Director General of Police Police Head Quarter Deptt of Home Affairs, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur C.G. 3. The Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh. C. G. 4. The Superintendent Of Police Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G. 5. The Sub Divisional Magistrate Sub Division Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh C.G. 6. The Station House Officer, Police Station Chhal, Eastern Coalfields Limited Head Quarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G. 7. The Chairman Cum Managing Director South Eastern Coalfields, Limited, Head Quarter Seepat Road, Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G. 8. The Area Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited Raigarh, Area, District Raigarh, C.G. 9. Ramnivas S/o Late Dallu Ram Aged About 68 Years Occupation Service Security Incharge, South Eastern Coalfields, Limited, Raigarh, District Raigarh, C.G. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. A.N. Bhakta and Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocates. For Respondent/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondents No. 7 & 8 : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, 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, learned counsel for the petitioners along with Mr. Vivek Bhakta, learned counsel. Also heard Mr. Saumya Rai, 3 learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 6 and Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 7 and 8. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: “It is, therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to: 1. allow this petition, 2. call for the entire records from the Courts below relating to the present case, 3. set-aside/quash the: (a) First Information Report (Under Crime No. 0265/2022) registered at Police Station Chhal on 15.12.2022 against the Petitioners for the offence punishable U/s. 341, 343, 347, 147, 188, 186 & 427 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 (ANNEXURE P-3). (b) Final Report No. 27/2024filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharamjaigarh on 28.02.2024 in Crime No. 0265/2022 registered at Police Station Chhal for the offence punishable Under Sections 341, 343, 347, 147, 188, 186 & 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (ANNEXURE P-2) (c) Cognizance taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharamjaigarh for framing of charges vide order dated 24.12.2024 against the Petitioners in Crime No. 0265/2022 registered at Police Station Chhal for the 4 offence punishable U/s. Under Sections 341, 343, 347, 147, 188, 186 & 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Relevant order dated 24.12.2024 is filed along with ANNEXURE P-1) (d) Charges framed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharamjaigarh on 10.06.2025 against the Petitioners in Crime No. 0265/2022 registered at Police Station Chhal for the offence punishable U/s. 341, 343, 347, 147, 188, 186 & 427 R/w. Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (ANNEXURE P-4 Colly) (e) Criminal trial proceeding initiated by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharamjaigarh in CIS Case No. 537/2024 on 24.12.2024 in Crime No. 0265/2022 registered at Police Station Chhal for the charges framed on 10.06.2025 for the offence punishable U/s. 341, 343, 347, 147, 188, 186 & 427 R/w. Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, 4. 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 petitioners submits that the petitioners are agriculturists of Village Laat (Chhal), District Raigarh, and are land losers on account of acquisition of their land by South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) for mining purposes. It is submitted that the petitioners have been deprived of their land under the surface right proceedings initiated under Section 247 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, ‘Code of 1959’). The compensation was awarded and paid to the petitioners pursuant to the proceedings 5 initiated by the Collector, Raigarh; however, despite the acquisition having taken place long back, the petitioners have not been provided employment. He further submits that the claim of the petitioners for employment is founded upon the Chhattisgarh State Government’s Adarsh Punarvas Niti, 2007. The said policy does not prescribe that a land loser must have lost more than 2.00 acres of land for becoming eligible for employment. However, SECL has repeatedly rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that they have lost less than 2.00 acres of land and, therefore, are not eligible for employment under the guidelines of SECL. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had earlier approached this Hon’ble Court on several occasions seeking consideration of their claim for employment. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court, the petitioners submitted representations before the competent authorities. However, their claim was rejected by SECL by communication dated 06.01.2020, mainly on the ground that the petitioners had lost less than 2.00 acres of land. He also contended that the aforesaid stand of SECL has already been considered by this Hon’ble Court. In WPC No. 6013/2024 and connected matters, this Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 27.01.2026, held that under the State Government’s Ideal Rehabilitation Policy, even land losers whose acquired land is less than 2.00 acres are entitled to consideration for employment. It is further submitted that the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court, in Writ Appeal No. 439/2025 and connected matters, vide order dated 29.07.2025, has also held that 6 affected persons/land losers having less than 2.00 acres of acquired land are entitled to employment in terms of the State Government’s Ideal Rehabilitation Policy, 2007. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the aforesaid position and repeated requests made by the petitioners, the respondent authorities failed to provide employment to them. The petitioners were, therefore, constrained to seek redressal through peaceful demonstration. Before assembling, the Petitioners had obtained permission from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dharamjaigarh, on 05.12.2022 for assembling peacefully on 08.12.2022 near the main gate of SECL, Chhal. The Petitioners assembled without arms and peacefully raised their grievance regarding non-provision of employment. He further stated that instead of considering the genuine grievance of the petitioners, a complaint was lodged against them, pursuant to which Crime No. 0265/2022 was registered at Police Station Chhal, District Raigarh. He submits that the criminal case was initiated in the backdrop of their continuing demand for employment and their peaceful demonstration. The petitioners had not resorted to any violent or unlawful activity and had assembled after obtaining prior permission from the competent authority. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the demonstration continued for a short period and, during the course thereof, meetings were held between the petitioners and the representatives of the SECL and District Administration. In the meeting 7 held on 29.12.2022, the authorities assured the petitioners that their grievance regarding employment would be considered and that the matter would be taken up at the SECL Headquarters, Bilaspur. Acting upon such assurance, the petitioners withdrew their demonstration. Thereafter, communications were also issued for convening meetings regarding the grievance of the petitioners. It is submitted that despite the aforesaid assurance and withdrawal of the demonstration, the police proceeded with the investigation and filed the charge-sheet on 28.02.2024. Cognizance was thereafter taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharamjaigarh, and charges have already been framed against the Petitioners. The criminal proceeding is presently pending before the learned trial Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the allegations forming the basis of the criminal proceeding are required to be examined in the background of the undisputed facts, namely, that the Petitioners are land losers, that their claim for employment has remained pending for several years, that they had obtained prior permission for the peaceful assembly and that the controversy regarding entitlement of land losers having less than 2.00 acres has already been considered by this Hon’ble Court. He further stated that the petitioners’ peaceful assembly was in furtherance of their grievance regarding their rehabilitation and employment arising out of acquisition of their land. The petitioners had exercised their right to peacefully assemble and raise their grievance, without arms or violence. Therefore, continuation of the criminal proceeding against them, in the 8 peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, would amount to abuse of the process of law. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that there has been considerable delay in completion of the investigation and filing of the final report. The FIR was registered on 15.12.2022, whereas the final report was filed only on 28.02.2024. It is contended that the prolonged criminal proceeding has caused serious prejudice to the petitioners, particularly when their underlying grievance regarding employment has continued to remain unresolved. 9. It is lastly submitted that the material available on record does not justify continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners and that the prosecution, in the facts of the present case, would serve no useful purpose. The petitioners, therefore, seek exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, now corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), for quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings pending before the learned trial Court. 10. Per contra, learned State counsel, while opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, would submit that the petitioners, along with other persons, had assembled near the main gate of SECL, Chhal, and the allegations contained in the FIR disclose commission of the offences for which the criminal case has been registered. He would further submit that the investigation has already 9 been completed and charge-sheet has been filed before the learned trial Court, whereafter cognizance has been taken and charges have also been framed. At this stage, according to the learned State counsel, the disputed questions of fact cannot appropriately be adjudicated in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. He would, therefore, pray for dismissal of the petition and for permitting the trial to proceed in accordance with law. 11. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 7 and 8 has also opposed the petition. He would submit that the petitioners had assembled and staged protest near the main gate of SECL, Chhal, and during the course of such protest, the road was blocked, thereby causing obstruction to the movement of vehicles and affecting the normal functioning of the SECL establishment. He would further submit that the protest was not merely a peaceful representation, but resulted in obstruction of the public road and interference with the functioning of the SECL authorities. According to him, the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during investigation prima facie disclose the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioners. 12. Learned counsel for respondents No. 7 and 8 would further submit that the permission obtained by the petitioners for assembling peacefully cannot be construed as permission to obstruct the road or to interfere with the functioning of the SECL establishment. It is contended that whether the petitioners had exceeded the scope of the permission granted to them and whether their conduct resulted in obstruction or 10 damage are matters which require appreciation of evidence before the learned trial Court. He would, therefore, submit that no case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC (now under Section 528 of the BNSS) is made out and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 14. From the record, it is not in dispute that the petitioners are land losers on account of acquisition of their land for the purposes of SECL and that their claim for employment has remained the subject matter of representations and earlier proceedings before this Court. It is also apparent from the record that the petitioners had obtained permission from the competent authority for assembling peacefully and that their protest was in relation to their grievance concerning employment arising out of acquisition of their land. 15. It is further evident from the record that the claim of the petitioners for employment was principally opposed by SECL on the ground that the acquired land was less than 2.00 acres. The said issue, however, has subsequently been considered by this Court in WPC No. 6013/2024 and connected matters, wherein, vide order dated 27.01.2026, this Court held that land losers whose acquired land is less than 2.00 acres are also entitled to consideration for employment under the State Government's Ideal Rehabilitation Policy, 2007. The Division Bench of this Court has also considered the said issue in Writ Appeal No. 11 439/2025 and connected matters vide order dated 29.07.2025. 16. In the aforesaid factual background, the grievance raised by the petitioners cannot be said to be wholly unrelated to any legal or legitimate claim. The petitioners were admittedly pursuing their claim for employment for several years and had approached the competent authorities as well as this Court on earlier occasions. Their subsequent decision to assemble and raise their grievance was preceded by permission granted by the competent authority. 17. The submission of respondents No. 7 and 8 that the petitioners had blocked the road and thereby affected the functioning of SECL has been taken into consideration. However, merely because an allegation of obstruction or interference has been made, the same, by itself, would not justify continuation of a criminal prosecution where the surrounding circumstances, the nature of the protest, the permission obtained by the petitioners and the material collected during investigation are considered in their entirety. 18. It is also significant that the petitioners had subsequently withdrawn their protest pursuant to the discussions and assurances given by the authorities. The record further indicates that meetings were convened between the petitioners and the concerned authorities for consideration of their grievance regarding employment. Thus, the entire occurrence has to be examined in the context of an ongoing dispute relating to rehabilitation and employment of land losers and not in isolation from the circumstances which led to the protest. 12 19. At the same time, the right to peaceful assembly cannot be understood as conferring an unrestricted right to obstruct a public road or to interfere with the lawful functioning of an establishment. However, in the facts of the present case, the question before this Court is whether the continuation of the criminal prosecution, in the circumstances brought on record, would serve the ends of justice or would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. 20. It is also noteworthy that the FIR was registered on 15.12.2022, whereas the final report came to be filed only on 28.02.2024. The petitioners have thereafter faced the criminal proceedings before the learned trial Court, cognizance has been taken and charges have also been framed. The prosecution has thus continued for a considerable period in relation to an incident arising out of a protest concerning the petitioners' claim for employment. 21. This Court is conscious of the settled principle that at the stage of exercising inherent jurisdiction, disputed questions of fact ordinarily ought not to be examined in detail. However, where the admitted and undisputed circumstances, taken cumulatively, demonstrate that continuation of the criminal proceeding would not advance the cause of justice and would result in abuse of the process of law, this Court is empowered to exercise its inherent jurisdiction. 22. In the present case, the petitioners had a subsisting grievance arising out of acquisition of their land; they had pursued the grievance before the authorities and this Court; permission for peaceful assembly 13 had been obtained; and the protest was ultimately withdrawn pursuant to discussions with the authorities. The subsequent criminal prosecution, viewed in the aforesaid background, does not warrant being permitted to continue merely for the purpose of subjecting the petitioners to a protracted criminal trial. 23. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and the material available on record, we are of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would not serve any useful purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. The case, therefore, warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC (now Section 528 of the BNSS). 24. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. 25. Accordingly, FIR bearing Crime No. 0265/2022 registered at Police Station Chhal, District Raigarh, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 343, 347, 147, 188, 186 and 427 of the IPC, the Final Report No. 27/2024 filed on 28.02.2024, the order dated 24.12.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharamjaigarh taking cognizance, the order dated 10.06.2025 framing charges under Sections 341, 343, 347, 147, 188, 186 and 427 read with Section 149 of the IPC and all consequential criminal proceedings in CIS Case No.537/2024 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharamjaigarh, insofar as they relate to the present petitioners, are hereby quashed. 14 26. It is made clear that the petitioners shall not, in future, indulge in any activity resulting in obstruction of public roads or interference with the lawful functioning of SECL or its establishments. However, in the event of any such violation in future, SECL shall be at liberty to take appropriate recourse to law, in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan