1 CGHC010319092026 2026:CGHC:36226-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2150 of 2026 Lokesh Garg S/o Late Madan Lal Garg Aged About 57 Years R/o Bhatagaon Chowk, P.S. Tikrapara, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Tikrapara, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Anurag Agrawal S/o Vijay Agrawal Aged About 37 Years R/o Rawatpura Phase 2, Near Sai Mandir, Ward - 60, Zone- 6, Police Station- Tikrapara, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Lokesh Garg (In person) For Respondent/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. A.G. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Md. Ruhul Ameen Memon, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14/08/2026 1. The present petition is taken up for hearing along with CRMP No. 2166 of 2026 (Anurag Agrawal and others v. State of Chhattisgarh), 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 VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.08.25 22:02:32 +0530 2 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. 2. The petitioner has filed the present criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to: i. ALLOW this petition and QUASH the chargesheet filed in Crime No. 10/2020 registered at Police Station Tikrapara, District Raipur, and the entire consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3100/2020 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur (C.G.) against the Petitioner for offences under Sections 294, 506, 34 of the IPC, in the interest of justice. ii. PASS any other order/orders which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are adjoining neighbours and the dispute between them arises out of long-standing residential and civil animosity. According to the petitioner, on 04.01.2020, when his minor son was present in the residential premises, a dispute arose in relation to the alleged attempt to erect bamboo scaffolding near the petitioner's shed. It is alleged that, thereafter, respondent No.2 and other persons came to the spot, 3 abused and threatened the petitioner and his minor son, pursuant to which the minor son contacted the police helpline. The petitioner further submits that, in respect of the very same incident, a counter-case was registered at the instance of his family vide Crime No.11/2020 against respondent No.2 and others for offences under Sections 294, 506 and 34 of the IPC. The charge-sheet in Crime No.10/2020 has resulted in Criminal Case No. 3100/2020, which is stated to be pending at the stage of arguments on charge. 4. It is further the case of the petitioner that he had earlier approached this Court by filing Cr.M.P. No.374/2024 seeking quashing of the very same criminal proceedings, which came to be dismissed. The petitioner submits that, subsequent thereto, there has been a material change in circumstances, particularly in view of the proceedings arising between the parties before the Division Bench of this Court, wherein, according to the petitioner, the nature of the dispute and existence of the cross- cases were noticed and the parties were permitted to approach this Court by filing appropriate petitions for quashing of the cross-cases. On the aforesaid subsequent developments, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 5. Mr. Lokesh Garg, petitioner appearing in person submits that the present petition is maintainable notwithstanding the dismissal of the earlier petition, as the petitioner is relying upon subsequent and materially changed circumstances which were not available when the earlier petition was decided. It is submitted that the dispute is essentially a private neighbourhood dispute arising out of the same occurrence, for which cross-cases have been registered against both 4 sides. According to learned counsel, continuation of the present prosecution, particularly when the matter is still at the stage of consideration of charge, would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of law. 6. The petitioner in person further 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.11/2020 demonstrates the cross-version nature of the 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. He submits that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court is intended to prevent abuse of the process of Court and to secure the ends of justice. Reliance is placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that ordinarily the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, is required to exercise restraint and should not embark upon appreciation of evidence or conduct a mini trial. It is submitted that the allegations in the charge-sheet are required to be considered at the appropriate stage by the learned Trial Court. 8. Learned State counsel, however, does not dispute that Crime No.11/2020 is the counter-case arising out of the same occurrence and 5 that the present prosecution relates to a neighbourhood dispute between the parties. It is also submitted that the subsequent development relied upon by the petitioner, including the proceedings before the Division Bench, may be considered by this Court while examining whether continuation of the present proceedings would serve the ends of justice. Subject to the discretion of this Court, the State leaves the matter to the Court. 9. We have considered the submissions made by petitioner as well as the counsel appearing for the respective respondents and perused the material available on record. 10. At the outset, it is necessary to consider the objection arising from the dismissal of the earlier petition, i.e. Cr.M.P. No.374/2024. There is no dispute that the earlier petition related to the very same Crime No.10/2020 and consequential Criminal Case No.3100/2020. Ordinarily, a second petition seeking the same relief cannot be entertained merely by reiterating the grounds which were available to the petitioner at the time of filing the earlier petition. However, the position would be different where subsequent events constitute a substantial change in circumstances and have a direct bearing upon the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 11. In the present case, the petitioner has specifically pleaded subsequent developments concerning the proceedings between the parties before the Division Bench of this Court and has relied upon the existence of cross-cases arising from the same transaction. The present petition, therefore, is not founded merely upon repetition of the grounds which were considered in the earlier petition. The subsequent developments, 6 particularly the manner in which the dispute between the parties has subsequently been dealt with in the connected proceedings, constitute a circumstance which can legitimately be taken into consideration while examining whether continuation of the prosecution would advance the cause of justice. 12. The scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is well settled. In Bhajan Lal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while illustrating the circumstances in which interference may be justified, held that quashing may be warranted where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose an offence or where continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. The principles enunciated in paragraph 102 of the said judgment continue to constitute the guiding parameters for exercise of inherent jurisdiction. 13. In the present matter, the offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 294, 506 and 34 of the IPC. The allegations arise from a localized dispute between adjoining neighbors. More importantly, the very same transaction has resulted in a counter-case, i.e. Crime No.11/2020, at the instance of the petitioner's side against respondent No.2 and others. Thus, the prosecution in question cannot be viewed in isolation from the cross-case arising out of the same occurrence. 14. We are conscious that at the stage of exercise of inherent jurisdiction this Court ordinarily does not undertake an assessment of the evidentiary worth of the allegations or conduct a mini trial. The question before us is narrower, namely, whether in the peculiar facts and subsequent circumstances of the present case, continuation of the prosecution would further the administration of criminal justice or 7 whether it would result in unnecessary continuation of litigation arising from a private neighbourhood dispute. 15. The fact that the parties have been litigating against each other in relation to the same transaction, resulting in cross-cases, assumes significance. The criminal prosecution is of the year 2020 and the matter is still pending at the stage of arguments on charge. The offences alleged are of a nature which, in the facts of the present case, do not disclose any overriding element of public interest or an offence having grave societal consequences. The continuation of the prosecution in isolation, while the connected counter-case arises from the same occurrence, would serve little purpose except perpetuating the litigation between the parties. 16. The subsequent development relied upon by the petitioner also assumes significance. The proceedings before the Division Bench of this Court demonstrate that the dispute between the parties and the existence of the cross-cases have subsequently been brought to the notice of the Court. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations contained in either of the cross-cases, the subsequent circumstances persuade us that the matter deserves to be considered from the standpoint of securing the ends of justice rather than permitting the criminal litigation arising out of a private neighbourhood dispute to continue indefinitely. 17. It is also settled that the inherent jurisdiction is intended to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. The power is extraordinary in nature, but its exercise is justified where the facts of the case clearly demonstrate that continuation of the criminal 8 proceedings would result in abuse of the process of law. In the present case, considering the nature of the allegations, the existence of the cross-case arising from the same transaction, the subsequent developments after dismissal of the earlier petition and the present stage of the proceedings, we are satisfied that the case falls within the exceptional jurisdiction of this Court. 18. We make it clear that the observations made herein are confined to examination of the question whether continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would serve the ends of justice. We have not adjudicated upon the correctness of the rival factual allegations or expressed any opinion on the merits of the counter-case. 19. Consequently, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The charge-sheet arising out of Crime No.10/2020, registered at Police Station Tikrapara, District Raipur, for offences punishable under Sections 294, 506 and 34 of the IPC, and the consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No.3100/2020, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, insofar as they relate to the present petitioner, are hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved