1 CGHC010360002025 2026:CGHC:36446-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 466 of 2025 Ishita D/o Shri Dhruv, Aged About 25 Years R/o Rohini Vihar, Green Park, District Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The SHO Police Station City Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - The SHO Police Station Anusuchit Jati Kalyan Thana, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4 - The Superintendent Of Police, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 5 - Vineeta Dahariya W/o Sagar Yadav, Aged About 27 Years R/o Tankapara Rajnandgaon, P.S. Rajnandgaon Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.........(Complainant) --- Respondent(s) WPCR No. 475 of 2025 Raksha Awasthi D/o Shri Upendranath Awasthi Aged About 52 Years R/o Rohini Vihar, Green Park, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.08.19 10:52:39 +0530 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The SHO Police Station City Kotwali, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - The SHO Police Station Anusuchit Jati Kalyan Thana Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4 - The Superintendent Of Police Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 5 - Vineeta Dahariya W/o Sagar Yadav Aged About 27 Years R/o Tankapara, Rajnandgaon P.S. Rajnandgaon Kotwali District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Complainant) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ku. Ishita (petitioner in person) and Advocate for petitioner in WPCR No. 475/2025 For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 17.08.2026 1. Heard Ku. Ishita, petitioner in person. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondents/State. 2. Learned State Counsel submits that, in compliance with the order dated 05.05.2026 passed by this Court, notice was duly served upon respondent No. 5. However, none appeared on behalf of respondent No. 5, nor was any representation made on his/her behalf. Further, a perusal of the office report dated 14.08.2026 also reveals that notice was duly served upon respondent No. 5. 3 3. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court deems the notice to respondent No. 5 to be sufficient and proceeds to hear the matter finally. 4. The petitioner has filed WPCR No. 466/2025 with the following prayer: “10.1. Direct the respondent authorities to present the record pertaining to the case of petitioner; 10.2. Issue appropriate writ/order/direction to quash the impugned FIR No. 312/2025 dated 21.06.2025 for alleged offences under Sections 3(1) (द) and 3(1) (ध) of the SC/ST Act, and Sec. 296 and 351(2) of BNS registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, Dist. Rajnandgaon, (C.G.), and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the investigation conducted by Anusuchit Jati Kalyan Thana, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, (C.G.), in the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law in order to safeguard the petitioner's fundamental rights u/a 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution; 10.3. Issue appropriate writ/order/direction to grant compensation to the petitioner for the mental harassment and loss of reputation; 10.4. Such other relief(s) in favour of petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with costs.” 5. The petitioner has filed WPCR No. 475/2025 with the following prayer: 4 “10.1. Direct the respondent authorities to present the record pertaining to the case of petitioner; 10.2. Issue appropriate writ/order/direction to quash the impugned FIR No. 312/2025 dated 21.06.2025 for alleged offences under Sections 3(1) (द) and 3(1) (ध) of the SC/ST Act, and Sec. 296 and 351(2) of BNS registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, Dist. Rajnandgaon, (C.G.), and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the investigation conducted by Anusuchit Jati Kalyan Thana, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, (C.G.), in the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law in order to safeguard the petitioner's fundamental rights u/a 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution; 10.3. Issue appropriate writ/order/direction to grant compensation to the petitioner for the mental harassment and loss of reputation; 10.4. Such other relief(s) in favour of petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with costs.” 6. The facts, in brief, giving rise to both the aforesaid petitions are that the petitioners in WPCR Nos. 466/2025 and 475/2025 are daughter and mother respectively and have challenged the registration of FIR No. 312/2025 dated 21.06.2025 at Police Station City Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon, for the alleged 5 offences under Sections 3(1)(द) and 3(1)(ध) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 296 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, contending that the impugned FIR is a false and malicious counterblast to the earlier complaint/FIR lodged by the petitioners and their family members against the complainant, her husband and others in connection with a dispute relating to the property of the petitioners’ grandfather/father. According to the petitioners, the alleged incident is stated to have taken place at about 6:00 p.m. on 20.06.2025, whereas the impugned FIR was registered only at 4:05 a.m. on 21.06.2025, without any satisfactory explanation for the delay, despite the complainant, her husband and other persons allegedly being present at the police station since the evening of the incident. It is further contended that the alleged place of occurrence is situated at a distance of approximately 0.8 kilometre from the police station. The prosecution allegation is that when the petitioners came near the pan shop being run by the complainant’s husband, namely, Sagar Yadav, they abused the complainant and her husband by using caste-related words and extended threats, in the presence of certain named witnesses. The petitioners dispute the said allegations and contend that the complainant was not previously known to them and that the allegations have been subsequently concocted to wreak vengeance upon them. They further contend that the complainant has projected herself as a member of the 6 Scheduled Caste community, whereas she is stated to be Vineeta Yadav, and that the alleged caste-related utterances were directed towards her husband Sagar Yadav, who, according to the petitioners, does not belong to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. On this basis, the petitioners contend that the essential ingredients of the offences under the SC/ST Act are not disclosed. They further contend that the allegations contained in the FIR do not prima facie constitute an offence under Section 296 of the BNS and that the offence under Section 351(2) of the BNS is bailable and non-cognizable. It is also the case of the petitioners that the impugned FIR is an abuse of the process of law, instituted as a retaliatory measure in the backdrop of an existing property dispute and the earlier criminal proceedings initiated by the petitioners against the complainant side. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court seeking quashing of FIR No. 312/2025 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. It is further stated that the petitioner in WPCR No. 466/2025, who is the daughter, had earlier been granted interim protection from arrest by this Court vide order dated 21.08.2025. 7. The petitioners, while assailing the impugned FIR, submits that the petitioners are facing a direct and imminent threat to their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India on account of a false, malicious and retaliatory prosecution initiated at the instance of respondent 7 No.5. It is contended that the impugned FIR is manifestly a counterblast to the earlier FIR/complaints lodged by the petitioners and their family members against respondent No.5, her husband and other persons in relation to the alleged attempts at land-grabbing, criminal intimidation and other offences, and that the sequence of events clearly establishes that the registration of the present FIR under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is actuated by personal vendetta and an ulterior motive to harass the petitioners by misuse of the police and State machinery. It is further submitted that even according to the allegations contained in the impugned FIR, the alleged altercation was primarily with Sagar Yadav, husband of respondent No.5, who was allegedly running a pan shop on the property belonging to the petitioners’ family and was himself present at the police station, yet no FIR was lodged by him and instead respondent No.5 subsequently lodged the impugned FIR after considerable delay, thereby demonstrating that the allegations were deliberately crafted to attract the stringent provisions of the SC/ST Act. It is argued that the delay in lodging the FIR, despite the alleged place of occurrence being situated in close proximity to the police station, coupled with the fact that the complainant and her husband were allegedly present at the police station since the evening of the incident, casts serious doubt upon the genuineness of the prosecution version. Learned counsel further submits that the 8 complainant was not previously known to the petitioners and that the persons cited as witnesses are interested and inimical to the petitioners’ family, there being no independent witness or other reliable material corroborating the allegations. It is also contended that the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged, particularly the offences under the SC/ST Act and Section 296 of the BNS, and that Section 351(2) of the BNS is bailable and non- cognizable. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, learned counsel submits that the present case falls within the categories recognised therein where the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice, particularly where the allegations are inherently improbable or the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and has been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2023 INSC 687, to contend that where an accused approaches the Court alleging that the criminal proceedings are frivolous, vexatious or instituted with an ulterior motive, the Court is required to examine the FIR with care and may look beyond the mere allegations contained therein and consider the attending circumstances leading to the registration 9 of the case and the material collected during investigation. Reliance has further been placed upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Alka Sethi and Another v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 7712, wherein proceedings arising out of an FIR under the SC/ST Act were quashed in circumstances where the prosecution was found to be manifestly vexatious and instituted to wreak vengeance in the backdrop of a larger property dispute. Learned counsel submits that petitioner Ku. Ishita is a young and meritorious lawyer with an unblemished record and that the pendency of a false criminal case would cause serious and irreparable prejudice to her academic and professional career, including her prospective pursuit of higher studies abroad, besides causing substantial injury to her reputation. It is therefore submitted that continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings would amount to permitting the criminal process to be used as an instrument of harassment and vengeance, would cause manifest injustice, unnecessarily burden the criminal justice system and infringe the petitioners’ rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom be quashed in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of law. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel, while opposing the petitions, submits that the impugned FIR No. 312/2025 dated 21.06.2025 10 has been registered by the competent police authority on the basis of a written complaint disclosing, prima facie, commission of cognizable offences under Sections 296 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(R) and 3(1)(S) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and there is no illegality or infirmity in its registration. It is submitted that the allegations levelled by the petitioners against the police authorities regarding collusion, mala fides or false implication are baseless and have been specifically denied, and that the police authorities are discharging their statutory duties fairly, independently and in accordance with law. Learned State counsel further submits that the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences and that the investigating agency has already proceeded with the investigation, during which material and documentary evidence have been collected indicating, prima facie, the involvement of the petitioners. It is contended that the correctness or otherwise of the allegations, the evidentiary value of the material collected and the defence sought to be raised by the petitioners are matters to be examined during investigation and, if necessary, at the stage of trial and cannot be conclusively adjudicated upon in proceedings seeking quashing of the FIR. It is further submitted that the disputed documents have been sent for examination to the Examiner of Questioned Documents at Raipur and, upon receipt of the report, the investigation would be concluded and the final report/charge- 11 sheet would be filed before the competent Court. Learned State counsel submits that the scope of interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited and that, where the FIR prima facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence, the Court should ordinarily permit the investigating agency to complete the investigation and should not trench upon the statutory power of the police to investigate. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Another, (1999) 8 SCC 728, State of Haryana & Others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Others, AIR 1992 SC 604, and Amish Devgan v. Union of India & Others, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 994, in support of the proposition that the extraordinary jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings is to be exercised sparingly and only to prevent abuse of the process of law or otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is argued that the petitioners have failed to establish that the present case falls within any of the categories warranting exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction as recognised in Bhajan Lal (supra). Learned State counsel therefore submits that the impugned FIR has been lawfully registered on the basis of the complaint and the investigation is being conducted in a fair and transparent manner, without being influenced by the status or position of any party, and that no exceptional circumstance has been demonstrated warranting interference by this Court at the stage of investigation. 12 Accordingly, dismissal of both the petitions is prayed for. 9. In reply to the State’s contention, petitioners submits that the stand taken by the State is false, misconceived and contrary to the material available on record. It is contended that the impugned FIR No. 312/2025 is a counterblast to the FIR lodged earlier in point of time by the petitioners and has been instituted with mala fide intention, vengeance and an ulterior motive to harass and falsely implicate the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that even if the allegations contained in the FIR are taken at their face value, the essential ingredients of the offences alleged, including the offences under the SC/ST Act, are not disclosed and the allegations are vague, concocted and inherently improbable. It is further submitted that the registration of an FIR cannot, by itself, preclude this Court from exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction where the initiation of criminal proceedings is manifestly mala fide and amounts to an abuse of the process of law. Learned counsel specifically relies upon Annexure RJ/1, stated to be CCTV footage from the police station, to contend that the same discloses the alleged conspiracy and collusion between the police authorities and the complainant side for falsely implicating the petitioners, and submits that the respondents have failed to specifically and effectively controvert the material allegations founded upon such CCTV footage. It is further submitted that the respondents have not placed any cogent, independent or legally admissible material 13 on record to substantiate the alleged involvement of the petitioners and that the vague assertion that an enquiry was conducted and documentary material was collected cannot, in the absence of disclosure or production of such material, justify continuation of a prosecution which is alleged to have been initiated with a predetermined and vindictive object. Learned counsel further submits that pendency of investigation is not an absolute bar to exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court where the very initiation of the criminal proceedings is alleged to be tainted by mala fides, illegality and abuse of process. It is contended that the manner in which the FIR was registered and the investigation is being conducted gives rise to a genuine apprehension that the petitioners would not receive a fair, impartial and unbiased investigation from the present investigating agency. Placing reliance upon Bhajan Lal (supra), learned counsel submits that the present case falls within the recognised parameters for exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court. Reliance is also placed upon Sajal Bose v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 335, to contend that where reliable and unimpeachable material demonstrably displaces the factual basis of the accusations and the prosecution is unable to effectively counter such material, the Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent injustice and avoid wastage of judicial time on proceedings having no reasonable prospect of culminating in conviction. Learned counsel further submits that 14 the decision in Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Another, (1999) 8 SCC 728, relied upon by the State, is distinguishable on its facts and does not constitute an absolute bar against interference where the initiation of proceedings itself is alleged to be mala fide. It is lastly submitted that the respondents have failed to furnish a proper paragraph-wise response to the allegations made in the petition and have merely made vague assertions regarding certain disputed documents allegedly being sent to the Examiner of Questioned Documents at Raipur, without disclosing the particulars or nature of such documents or placing the same on record. It is therefore submitted that the State has failed to demonstrate any credible or independent material warranting continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings and that the FIR and consequential investigation deserve to be quashed in the interest of justice. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with this petition. 11. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has laid down the principles governing exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of an FIR and criminal proceedings. It has been held that such jurisdiction may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 15 Amongst the illustrative categories recognised by the Supreme Court is a case where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance upon the accused. 12. The Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Sharma and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2016) 9 SCC 1, while considering the principles laid down in Rajiv Thapar and others v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, held that although the power to quash criminal proceedings is required to be exercised with caution, care and circumspection, the High Court may exercise such jurisdiction where the material produced by the accused is of sterling and impeccable quality and is such as would rule out and displace the factual assertions contained in the prosecution case. The Court further delineated the factors to be considered, namely, whether the material relied upon is sound, reasonable and indubitable, whether it effectively displaces the allegations made against the accused, whether such material has remained unrefuted or cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution, and whether continuation of the proceedings would result in abuse of the process of the Court and would not serve the ends of justice. Where these requirements are satisfied, the High Court would be justified in exercising its jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. 16 13. The Supreme Court in Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2023 INSC 687, has further observed that where an accused approaches the Court alleging that the criminal proceedings are manifestly frivolous, vexatious or instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, the Court is required to examine the FIR with care and a little more closely. It has been held that in such circumstances, the Court is not required to restrict its consideration merely to the averments contained in the FIR but may also examine the attending circumstances emerging from the record which led to the initiation and registration of the criminal proceedings, as well as the material collected during investigation, with due care and circumspection. 14. The Supreme Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 626, has reiterated that criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to be used as a weapon of harassment and that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court may be exercised where continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law or otherwise result in failure of justice. Thus, while the power of quashing is undoubtedly to be exercised sparingly and with caution, the same cannot be withheld in a case where the material on record, considered in its entirety, demonstrates that the criminal process has been set in motion for an ulterior purpose and its continuation would cause manifest injustice. 17 15. Reverting to the facts of the present case, upon consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the impugned FIR has been lodged in the backdrop of an existing dispute between the parties and the earlier criminal proceedings initiated by the petitioners against the complainant side. The alleged incident is stated to have taken place at about 6:00 p.m. on 20.06.2025, whereas the FIR was registered at about 4:05 a.m. on 21.06.2025. The petitioners have specifically pointed out that the complainant and her husband were present at the police station since the evening and that the alleged place of occurrence was situated only about 0.8 kilometre from the police station. The State has not been able to furnish any satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR. 16. It is further evident from the material placed on record that the present FIR came to be registered subsequent to the earlier proceedings initiated by the petitioners against the complainant side. The petitioners have also relied upon CCTV footage and other material in support of their allegation that the impugned proceedings were initiated with an ulterior motive and in collusion with the police authorities. Though the State has denied the allegations and has submitted that the matter is under investigation, no specific material has been placed on record which effectively dislodges the circumstances relied upon by the petitioners. In the facts of the present case, the mere pendency of investigation cannot by itself preclude this Court from exercising 18 its extraordinary jurisdiction where the attending circumstances disclose that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. 17. The petitioners have also specifically disputed the applicability of the provisions of the SC/ST Act and the existence of the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the unexplained delay in registration of the FIR, the prior proceedings between the parties and the material placed on record by the petitioners, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case falls within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra). The circumstances cumulatively indicate that the impugned criminal proceedings have been initiated with an ulterior motive and that permitting the same to continue would result in abuse of the process of law. 18. It is also pertinent that notice to respondent No.5/complainant was duly served pursuant to the order dated 05.05.2026, but despite service of notice, none has appeared on her behalf nor has any representation been made opposing the present petitions. Thus, the Court has considered the matter on the basis of the material available on record and the submissions advanced by the petitioners and the State. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the petitions, i.e. WPCR No. 466/2025 and WPCR No. 475/2025, deserve to be and are 19 hereby allowed. FIR No. 312/2025 dated 21.06.2025 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon, for the offences under Sections 296 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(R) and 3(1)(S) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, insofar as they relate to the present petitioners, are hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet