1 2026:CGHC:14913-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 883 of 2026 1 - Monish Hatkeshwar S/o Late Shri Mukesh Hatkeshwar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Shankar Nagar, Near Mohan Building, Police Station - Torwa, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Vasu Hatkeshwar S/o Nandulal Hatkeshwar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Shankar Nagar, Near Mohan Building, Police Station - Torwa, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Honey Hatkeshwar S/o Nandulal Hatkeshwar, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Shankar Nagar, Near Mohan Building, Police Station - Torwa, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Torwa, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Mamta Barmande W/o Paras Barmande, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Shankar Nagar Mohan Building, Police Station Torwa, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Tessy Abraham, Advocate. For State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.04.04 13:46:20 +0530 2 Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 01-04-2026 1. Heard Mr. Tessy Abraham, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the FIR registered under section 115(2), 296, 3(5), 351(3) and 77 of BNS registered at police station- Torwa thana, Bilaspur (C.G.) and stay of arrest/coercive steps forthwith and any other reliefs as deemed fit in the interest of justice.” 3. The complainant made a complaint on 04-03-2026 to Police Station Torwa, District Bilaspur with the allegation that on 04-03-2026 itself at about 06:30 evening when she returned from the house of her sister-in-law, her daughter informed her that petitioner No.1 was making video on his mobile phone while she was changing her clothes and the same was witnessed by her younger brother and at that time her Buaa (sister of her father) came there and seeing her the petitioner No.1 tried to flee from the house and he was caught hold by her Buaa and the video was got deleted by her. Thereafter, at about 7:00 p.m. when son of the complainant went a nearby shop the petitioners threatening him 3 abused with filthy language and petitioner No.2 assaulted him on his back with a sharp object and petitioner No.1 and 3 assaulted him by hands and fists on his hands, legs and abdomen and the said incident has been witnessed by her daughter, her sister-in-law and other people of vicinity who intervened in the incident and have rescued son of the complainant. On the complaint made by the complainant the police has registered the offence under Section 115(2), 296, 3(5), 351(3) and 77 of BNS against the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the mother of petitioner No.1 made a complaint to the same police station on 04-03-2026 against the son of the complainant stating that he came behind her house in inebriated condition and while abusing in filthy language threatened her to implicate the petitioners in false criminal case and the said complaint was recorded under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C./174 of BNSS by police, which clearly shows that the present FIR lodged by the complainant is motivated and retaliatory proceeding. The allegations made in the FIR are omnibus and legally untenable and liable to be quashed. All the offences alleged in the FIR are bailable in nature. The allegations in the FIR is self-contradictory in as much as the alleged act of video recording is stated to have been instantly deleted, which is highly suspicious and improbable. Therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that only existence of a 4 counter report cannot be a sufficient ground to quash the impugned FIR. The allegations made in the FIR reflect cognizable offence which requires investigation and appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. In the matter of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Supreme Court in para 23 held as under :- “23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under: 5 i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; 6 ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;” 8. In the present case, the impugned FIR prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offences against the petitioners that on 04.03.2026, at about 6:30 p.m. petitioner No.1 was caught making a video of the daughter of the complainant while she was changing clothes in her house, which was deleted after he was apprehended. It is also the allegation that at about 7:00 p.m., the petitioners abused and assaulted the complainant's son, with petitioner No.2 using a sharp object and petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 using hands and fists, in the presence of witnesses. On this basis, offences under Sections 115(2), 296, 3(5), 351(3) and 77 of BNS were registered against the petitioners. The incident is stated to have been witnessed by the complainant's daughter, her sister-in-law, and other persons of the locality who intervened and rescued the victim. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, including the plea of false implication and existence of a counter complaint, involve disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated at this stage in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. 9. The petitioners could not make out any prima facie sufficient ground to interfere in the matter and to quash the impugned FIR 7 registered against them. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure (supra) and considering the allegations made in the FIR, we do not find any scope for interference and to quash the impugned FIR. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil