1 CGHC010329022026 2026:CGHC:41127-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2421 of 2026 Sunil Yadav S/o Baijnath Yadav Aged About 47 Years R/o Hospital Ward, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Farasgaon Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pushpendra Singh Baghel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sudhir Kumar Order on Board 22. 09.2026 Per Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for seeking quashing of FIR bearing Crime No. 62/2026 dated 30.05.2026, registered at Police Station Farasgaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.), and the consequential proceedings arising of the same FIR for commission of offence punishable under Sections 308(2), 319(2) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Tameshwar Sinha lodged the written complaint before Police Sttion Farasgaon, Kondagaon SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2026.09.23 10:49:00 +0530 2 alleging that on 25.03.2026 they were going to Raipur from Geedam with wood belonging to Devraj Gupta. They had parked their vehicle bearing registration No. CG 07 CK 9367 at Borgaon petrol pump and were sleeping with conductor Jitendra Goswami at that time two persons came in a Swift bearing registration number CG 27 A 1615 and introduced themselves as a journalist, and other co-accused claiming himself to be from the Forest Department and had demanded the documents of the vehicle and wood. Thereafter, they demanded Rs. 50,000 from the owner of the goods, Devraj Gupta and threatened him that if the money is not given, then the vehicle will be confiscated. It is also alleged that the accused forceful took out Rs. 1350 from his packet for their petrol expenses and also took all the documents of the vehicle which was kept by him and pressurized him to demand Rs. 50000 from the owner of the vehicle. On the basis of the complaint, FIR was registered against appellant and co-accused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been falsely been implicated in the case and charge sheet has not been filed till today. He would further submit that the applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 975 of 2026 by the coordinate Bench of this High Court on 30.06.2026. He would further submit that the applicant, being a journalist, was present at the spot in the discharge of his professional duties for the purpose of verifying information regarding the alleged illegal transportation of wood and had no connection whatsoever with the transportation of the wood which clearly indicate that he was falsely implicated in the crime in question. He has also submitted Pen drive where it has been recorded that the complainant has stated that he will falsely implicat the petitioner in crime in question. 3 4. He would further submit that the petitioner had informed the concerned Forest officer regarding the suspected illegal transportation of wood which clearly demonstrates his bonafides. He would further submit that there is an unexplained delay of more than two months in registration of the FIR, which create doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution case. He would further submits that that the petitioner has consistently raised issued of public importance, including allegation of irregularities in the Government department and had submitted several complaints to the competent authorities regarding administrative irregularities and would pray for quashing of the FIR and consequently proceedings pending against the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the petitioner, being a journalist has no right to inspect any vehicle or to do any investigation and for that purpose a competent machinery has already been available to look after the affairs for commission of the offence. He would further submit that the petitioner exceeding his jurisdiction and demanded extortion of money of Rs. 50,000/- from the owner of the vehicle and would pray for dismissal of the present petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. Considering the averments of the FIR, it is quite vivid that the complainant has lodged the complaint alleging that the petitioner, a journalist come along with other co-accused had demand Rs. 50,000/- from the owner of the vehicle and the co-accused impersonating himself to be forest officer whereas no such material has been placed on record that the person who has come along with the petitioner was the forest officer or not and the Pen 4 drive filed with the petition, correctness and genuineness of the statement of the victim can be decided by the trial Court during trial also considering the well settled legal position of law that this Court cannot conduct roving/fishing inquiry exercising power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. 8. It is well settled position of law that this Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction should not travel the allegations contained in the complaint and material placed by the complainant by delving into the defense sought to be projected by the accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Accamma Sam Jacob vs. The State of Karnataka & Another Etc. reported in 2026 INSC 362 and has held in paragraphs 52, 54 and 56 as under:- 52. In the present set of appeals, the proceedings were at a nascent stage. The Magistrate had merely exercised jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of CrPC and directed investigation by the police. It cannot be gainsaid that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of CrPC, the Magistrate is required to merely peruse complainant the and application examine filed whether by the facts disclosed therein prima facie disclose the necessary ingredients of cognizable offences requiring investigation by police. The Magistrate is not expected to undertake an exhaustive evaluation of evidence nor adjudicate upon the merits of the allegations. If the Magistrate arrives at the conclusion that prima facie a cognizable offence is disclosed, then he would be fully justified in directing the concerned SHO to register an FIR and proceed with investigation in accordance with law. The High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC, must remain circumspect in interfering with such an exercise of power and ought to intervene only where it is evident that the order lacks any legal foundation; suffers from perversity or that the same may result in failure of justice. 54. The facts in the case at hand manifest that the High Court proceeded to examine documents relied upon by the accused- respondents, including the sale deeds executed in their favour, and treated the same as determinative of the dispute and observed that the sale deeds must be cancelled and delivered up first, before the criminal law could be set into motion. Such an exercise was clearly beyond the permissible scope of scrutiny in a petition for quashing under Section 482 of CrPC. Consideration of defence material, including sale deeds or other title documents would necessarily involve adjudication on disputed questions of fact, which fall squarely within the domain of investigation and, if necessary, trial. Any such exercise at the stage of Section 156(3) of CrPC would 5 amount to conducting a mini-trial and would be wholly impermissible. Permitting such defence material to be weighed at the threshold would frustrate and defeat the very purpose of directing an investigation by the police. 56. In the facts and circumstances noted above, it was not at all justified for the High Court to have quashed proceedings merely on the ground that the dispute appeared to be civil in nature. It is well settled that the mere existence of a civil remedy does not by itself bar criminal proceedings where the allegations prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence. By entering into an evaluation of the dispute on merits and proceeding to quash the order directing investigation, the High Court effectively stifled the investigative process at its inception. Such an approach runs contrary to the principles consistently laid down by this Court.” 9. It is also well settled position of law that the Court should be very slow in interfering at the stage of FIR or quashing of the FIR unless so strong case is made out and registration of FIR is an abuse process of law. Accordingly, it is held that present is not a fit case to exercise its inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 to quash the FIR. Accordingly, the present Cr.M.P. fails and is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. It is made clear, that this Court has not commented anything on the merit of the case only the allegation are taken into consideration while answering the question raised by the counsel for the petitioner that no case is made out. However, in the eventuality of filing of the charge sheet the trial Court will considered and decide the case of the petitioner without being influenced from the observation made by this Court. Sd/- Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) (Sudhir Kumar) Judge Judge Santosh