1 CGHC010329682026 2026:CGHC:38266-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2259 of 2026 Prayank Kumar Khare S/o Suresh Kumar Khare Aged About 35 Years Authorized Officer/ Manager Of Laxmi Narayan Hospital, Gudri Chowk, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary (Home), Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Station House Officer Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 3 - Vivek Jaiswal S/o Shambhoo Prasad Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Girwani, Tehsil - Raghunath Nagar, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.K.Jha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 and 2 : Mr. S.S.Baghel, Government Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 31/08/2026 1. Heard Mr. T.K.Jha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondents MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.09.01 11:21:10 +0530 2 No. 1 and 2. 2. By this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNSS), the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No. 0447/2026 dated 02.07.2026 registered at Police Station, Ambikapur, District Surguja, for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNS). 3. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the respondent No. 3 lodged an FIR bearing Crime No. 0447/2026 on 02.07.2026 at Police Station, Ambikapur alleging that he is resident of Village-Girwani, Tehsil- Raghunathnagar, District-Balrampur, who had taken his elder paternal uncle, Shri Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal, to Laxminarayan Hospital situated at Gudri Bazar Chowk, Ambikapur, on 17.04.2026 due to complaints of pain in his stomach. After examination by the Doctor there, it was told that there was a blockage in the veins of the patient's heart, for which treatment would be done through the process of angioplasty and three stents would be inserted, the cost of which could be paid through the Ayushman Card. But after some time, the hospital management told him that the patient's Ayushman Card had been blocked due to some reason, and therefore he would have to make the payment in cash. Due to the condition of the patient and being scared of the problem explained by the doctor, he paid Rs. 1,60,000/- including medicines. But later, when we got the patient's Ayushman Card checked, it was found that the hospital management had also taken out the sum of Rs. 1,50,460/- from the Ayushman Card, whereas only two stents were been inserted in the patient and the insertion of the third stent was still remaining. The hospital Management continuously told lies and did not provide any kind 3 of bills to him and thus, have committed cheating with him. 4. At the outset, Mr. Jha, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier filed Cr.M.P. No. 2151/2026 for the same relief which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition vide order dated 17.08.2026. 5. Mr. Jha submits that the registration of the FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The patient was brought in a critical condition and he remained hospitalised from 17.04.2026 to 29.04.2026 and during this period, one balloon and two stents were used during emergency procedure called angioplasty to open blocked blood vessel and restore blood flow to the heart. A total bill raised for the treatment, admission and medicine was Rs. 4,93,814/- whereas the hospital received only Rs.1,60,000/- in cash and Rs.1,50,460/- through Ayushman card. The police did not bother to make any enquiry before registration of the FIR and a notice has been sent to the Hospital. The Chief Medical & Health Officer, Ambikapur has also called for an explanation from the petitioner hospital on the complaint of respondent No. 3 to which the petitioner has duly submitted its explanation which is quite detail one and self explanatory. The FIR has been lodged not by the patient or his son but by a distant relative without any rhyme or reason which is an abuse of process of law with ulterior motive. No case of cheating is made out in the present case and as such, this petition deserves to be allowed. 6. On the other hand, Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent submits that from perusal of the FIR, it is clear that the allegation against the petitioner-hospital is serious in nature. On the one hand, earlier it was stated by the petitioner that the Ayushman Card of the petitioner was not working and on the other hand, 4 money has been deducted from the said card also and the petitioner- hospital has further not supplied the bills of the treatment given to the patient, as alleged by the respondent No. 3. The matter is at the stage of investigation and the petitioner may place his version before the Police authorities and as such, at this stage, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 8. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge- sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.). 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Supreme Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. A note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts 5 should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 10. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has authoritatively settled the scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the BNSS). The Apex Court has held that the power to quash criminal proceedings is required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the rarest of rare cases. It has been categorically observed that while considering a prayer for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR, nor can it appreciate the evidence or conduct a mini trial. The Court is only required to examine whether the allegations, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court further emphasized that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the threshold, that investigation into cognizable offences should ordinarily be permitted to proceed unhindered, and that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with great caution and self-restraint, save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in manifest miscarriage of justice. 11. Very recently, in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid principles and further held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS), the High Court cannot 6 adjudicate disputed questions of fact or evaluate the evidentiary worth of the material collected during investigation. Unless all these parameters are cumulatively satisfied, the High Court ought not to interfere in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, leaving the parties to establish their respective cases before the trial Court in accordance with law. 12. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, and upon consideration of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as the material available on record, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out for exercise of the extraordinary and inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS. Whether the petitioner had illegally realised any amount through the Ayushman Card of the patient and whether any excess amount was realised from the patient in comparison with the treatment actually provided are matters which require investigation. At this stage, this Court is not required to examine whether the prosecution would ultimately be able to prove the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt. The limited question is whether, on taking the allegations contained in the FIR at their face value, the same disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner. In the present case, the allegations regarding the use of the Ayushman Card, payment of cash, the amount allegedly received by the hospital, the number of stents actually inserted, and the alleged non- supply of bills involve disputed questions of fact which cannot appropriately be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. 13. Accordingly, the petitioner is at liberty to place all relevant documents, explanations and other material in support of its defence before the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. The Investigating Officer shall consider the same in accordance with law. 7 14. Consequently, this petition stands dismissed. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations or on the defence sought to be raised by the petitioner. The observations made herein are confined solely to the consideration of the petitioner's prayer for quashing of the FIR. 15. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all permissible grounds and contentions before the appropriate authority/Court at the appropriate stage, in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Manpreet / Amit