1 2026:CGHC:827-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 22 of 2026 Manoj Pandey S/o Sabhajit Pandey Aged About 52 Years R/o Sai Mandir Road, Mahadev Ghat, Raipura, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through-Police Station Rakhi, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Sanjeev Tiwari S/o S. S. Tiwari Aged About 50 Years Posted on The Post Of Additional Director Indrawati Bhawan, Directorater Pubic Relation, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No. 01/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Adv. General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board 7.1.2026 1. Heard Mr. Virendra Verma, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.01.07 18:22:24 +0530 2 General, appearing for the respondent No. 1/State. 2. By this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNSS) the petitioner prays for following reliefs:- “i. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023 %led by the petitioner. ii. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the F.I.R. in crime по. 165/2025 registered as police station Rakhi District Raipur for o1ence u/s 3(2) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984 and Section 132, 221, 296,3(5), 324(4), 351(2) of BNS 2023, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case is that complainant, Sanjeev Tiwari, lodged an FIR against the present petitioner alleging that on 09.10.2025 at about 12:30 noon, while he was having a meeting with the Senior Journalist and Editor of India Channel News, proprietor Pawan Dubey, four unknown persons suddenly entered his o<ce forcibly. It is alleged that the complainant did not know any of the said persons. One of them, who was wearing a black T-shirt, allegedly abused the complainant, used =lthy language, and threatened him, while the other three persons started damaging and breaking the articles kept on the table, causing annoyance and loss to the complainant. It is further alleged in the FIR that during the course of the scu>e and the incident, one of the co-accused, whose name 3 was heard as “Toushif” or “Tokir” (as the complainant could not hear it clearly), along with the other accused persons, damaged the articles. It is also alleged that one of the co-accused caught hold of the neck of the complainant. Pawan Dubey, who was sitting behind the complainant, intervened in his defence, and after the struggle, the complainant was forcibly pushed out of the place of incident and ran away. It is alleged that persons standing in the verandah witnessed the incident. On the basis of the said allegations against unknown persons, the FIR was lodged on 09.10.2025 as Crime No. 165/2025 at Police Station Rakhi for oAences punishable under Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sections 132, 221, 296, 3(5), 324(4), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the police registered the FIR against unknown persons without conducting any preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether the alleged incident had actually taken place. He further submits that the petitioner is a freelance reporter with Buland Samachar newspaper and had earlier published articles exposing discrepancies against respondent No. 2, which aggrieved him. Owing to the said publications, respondent No. 2 has lodged a false and fabricated report against the petitioner with an ulterior motive. In the FIR, the complainant has primarily alleged that unknown persons forcibly 4 entered the o<ce, damaged articles, and assaulted him. However, it is highly improbable that such an incident could occur in an o<ce premises which is fully enclosed, under CCTV surveillance, and guarded by staA, without any intervention or resistance by anyone present. He also submits that the complainant is holding a senior post in a government department and is responsible for explaining government schemes and public policies to the public, which highlights his inFuential position. The entry into the complainant’s o<ce requires prior permission from the peon and o<ce staA, making the alleged forcible entry by unknown persons implausible. He contended that the FIR does not name the petitioner, and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case solely due to personal vendetta, as he had earlier published articles against the complainant in the public interest. He further contended that after registration of the FIR, the petitioner =led an application for anticipatory bail, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 04.11.2025, and the petitioner has been complying with all the conditions imposed therein till date. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed. 5. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1/State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the FIR discloses prima facie 5 oAence. As such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the prayers and pleadings made in this petition. 7. From perusal of the FIR, it transpires that written complaint was lodged by Sanjay Tiwari, Additional Director, O<ce of the Directorate of Public Relations, Indrawati Bhavan, Raipur. In his report, the complainant alleged that on 09.10.2025 at about 12:30 PM, while he was sitting in his o<ce and conversing with a senior journalist of Channel India, namely Pawan Dubey, four unknown persons suddenly entered his o<ce premises. Since the o<ce space was limited, Pawan Dubey left the room. Thereafter, one of the intruders, wearing a black shirt and identifying himself as “Toushif” or “Tokir,” claiming to be a journalist, pointed towards another person and stated that he had been manhandled the previous day. When the complainant asked them to sit and explain the matter, the said person responded that they had not come to sit and began quarrelling with him. On being asked to leave the o<ce, the four individuals allegedly refused and, upon the complainant’s attempt to remove them, they caught hold of him, forcing the complainant to free himself and run outside to save his life. The altercation allegedly continued outside the o<ce for about 10–15 minutes. It is further alleged that thereafter, Manoj Pandey, who is the Editor of Buland Chhattisgarh, entered the o<ce and 6 began conversing about the incident. During this time, the complainant overheard a telephonic conversation wherein the said four persons informed the petitioner that it was he who had brought them to the o<ce and that a video of the incident had been recorded. Based on this report, the police registered a case against four unknown person. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others1 has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. The Supreme Court has emphasised that though the court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable oAence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 9. In the instant case, from perusal of the FIR lodged by the complainant, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable 1 2021 SCC Online SC 315 7 oAence is made out. The present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC (Now Section 528 of the BNSS) to quash the impugned FIR. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the FIR. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perusing the documents appended with the petition, also considering the contents of the FIR and the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference in this petition. 11. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu