1 CGHC010382442026 2026:CGHC:42090-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2536 of 2026 Bhagwan Singh Thakur S/o Late Chamru Ram Thakur Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Mainpur II, Post Mainpur-II, Tehsil Police Station And District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohammad Afroz Athar, Advocate appeared through video conferencing. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas & Hon’ble Shri Justice Sudhir Kumar Order on Board 28.09.2026 Per Narendra Kumar Vyas, J 1. The petitioner has filed the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 07.07.2021 bearing No.160/2021 and Criminal Case No.359/2021 arising out of FIR AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 No.231/2019 dated 18.10.2019 registered at Police Station Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as the order dated 29.07.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband in Criminal Revision No.03/2026, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 24.01.2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gariyaband in Criminal Case No.359/2021, rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking discharge, has been dismissed. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a complaint before the Police on 19.04.2017 alleging that the petitioner, claiming himself to be an RTI activist and to be associated with the Prime Minister’s Office, had sought information and was harassing him. On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR was registered at Police Station Gariyaband and, after usual investigation, a charge- sheet was filed before the learned trial Court. The complainant, Budhram Yadav, was examined during investigation, wherein he stated that the present petitioner, Bhagwan Singh Thakur, being a Patwari, was claiming himself to be an RTI activist and was also making false claims by representing himself to be associated with the Public Grievances Department of the Prime Minister’s Office, with an intention to obtain confidential information of individuals and thereby harassing him. 3. The petitioner submitted an application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.), contending that the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal 3 Code were not made out against him and, therefore, continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. It was further contended that the petitioner had not mentioned below his name on the letter pad that he was associated with the Prime Minister’s Office, rather, the words indicating such association were printed only at the corner of the letter pad and has not claimed to be connected with the Prime Minister’s Office. It has also been contended that there is no allegation that complainant or any other person has been caused wrongful loss to attract Section 420 of the IPC or there is no allegation of forgery any valuable security in order to cause wrongful gain to any person or the complainant has been committed by the petitioner to attract Section 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. On these grounds, discharge was sought. 4. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 24.01.2026, rejected the said application, negating the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and observing that sufficient material was available on record prima facie indicating commission of the alleged offences by the petitioner. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, registered as Criminal Revision No. 03/2026. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while considering the revision petition, recorded its findings in paragraph 6 considering the statement of the complainant, it has observed that the petitioner, despite being a Patwari, was working as an RTI activist and had also used a letter pad indicating his association with the Public Grievances Department of the Prime Minister’s Office. As such, prima facie material is available against the petitioner. It has also taken into consideration the communication issued by the Prime Minister’s Office, South Block, New Delhi, dated 4 12.07.2019, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that, “There is no such Department as Prime Minister’s Office Public Grievance Redressal Department and Bhagwan Singh Thakur is not associated with this Office.” Accordingly, the learned revisional Court affirmed the order dated 24.01.2026 passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the revision petition. The said orders are under challenge before this Court in the present petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the submission made before the Courts below and would submit that, by any stretch of the imagination, even if the allegations levelled against him are taken into consideration on their face value, they do not connect the petitioner with the commission of the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. He would further submit that, though there may be some prima facie material against the petitioner, for that, only the offence under Section 419 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner, which is a compoundable offence and to substantiate his submission that no charges made out he has relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mariam Fashiuddin and Another vs. State by Adugodi Police Station and Another reported in 2024 INSC 49. 7. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General opposed the submission and would submit that the trial Court, after going through the charge-sheet, has examined the issues and has recorded prima facie material available against the petitioner. This has been affirmed from the communication issued by the Prime Minister’s Office, South Block, New Delhi, dated 12.07.2019. He would object to the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that only the offence under Section 419 of the IPC is attracted against the 5 petitioner and would submit that this Court, at the time of hearing of the petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, should not examine the quality of the material collected by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner himself admitted that its act may tantamount to offence under Section 419 of the IPC, which is sufficient for continuation of the proceedings against him. Therefore, he would pray for rejection of the petition. 8. He would further submit that the trial Court has taken note of the facts and has also found prima facie involvement of the petitioner and, accordingly, has rejected the same. Thus, it is contended that the finding recorded by the trial Court, as affirmed by the revisional Court, taking cognizance against the petitioner, does not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court, and would pray for dismissal of the present petition. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also considered the communication issued by the Prime Minister’s Office, South Block, New Delhi, dated 12.07.2019, wherein it has been categorically mentioned that “There is no such Department as Prime Minister’s Office Public Grievance Redressal Department and Bhagwan Singh Thakur is not associated with this Office”. As such, there are prima facie some materials against the petitioner. The trial Court as well as the revisional Court have taken note of this document and recorded their findings, which cannot be said to be perverse or to suffer from any illegality for continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 10. Even otherwise, considering the well-settled parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Accamma Sam Jacob vs. 6 The State of Karnataka & Another Etc., reported in 2026 INSC 362, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when the investigation of the trial is at the initial stage, the High Court should not exercise its power under Section 528 of the BNSS or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to interfere in the outgoing criminal proceedings unless it is found that the prima facie continuation of the proceedings is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraphs 52, 54 and 56 which state 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 7 of Section 156(3) of CrPC would 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.” 11. In the present case, considering the aforesaid principle and also considering that there are some material against the petitioner which are sufficient for continuation of the proceedings against him. Therefore, considering the well settled position of law that while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC the High Court should not intervene unless the petitioner is made out a case that the order lacks any legal foundation suffers from perversity or that the same may result in failure of justice which is not available in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly the CRMP deserves to be dismissed. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that in view of Article 134-A of the Constitution of India, a Certificate for appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court is necessary, as there is a substantial question of law involved in the case which is to be answered authoritatively by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13. So far as submission of petitioner is concerned that in view of Article 134-A of the Constitution of India, a Certificate for appeal to the 8 Hon’ble Supreme Court is necessary, as there is a substantial question of law involved in the case which is required to be authoritatively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the said submission deserves to be rejected, as, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no question which is required to be authoritatively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as it is well-settled position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Accamma Sam Jacob (supra) and other case decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the High Court can interfere 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. Accordingly, the oral prayer for grant of Certificate under Article 134(1) (c) read with Article 134-A of the Constitution of India is rejected and, therefore, we are of the view that at this juncture, no interference is called for. 14. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Sd/- (Sudhir Kumar) Judge Akhil