1 2026:CGHC:16071 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 923 of 2026 1 - Laxminarayan Kesar S/o Sukhru Kesar Aged About 59 Years Resident Of Awaspara, Nagoi, Police Station Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Shashibhushan Pandey S/o Radheshyam Pandey Aged About 47 Years Resident of Jorapara, New Sarkanda, Police Station Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ramsajiwan, Advocate. For State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. S.B. Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 08-04-2026 1. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 filed by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR of Crime No.752/2021 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur for the offence under Section Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.04.13 11:57:42 +0530 2 294, 323 and 506 of the IPC and prayed for the following relief(s):- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR dated 29-06-2021 bearing Crime No.752/2021 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.), impugned final report No.598/2021 dated 30-07-2021, impugned cognizance order dated 04-08-2021, impugned charge framed against the petitioner vide order dated 05-10-2021 and also quash the impugned criminal proceeding bearing Criminal Case No.2502/2021 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Bilaspur (C.G.), in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case are that on 29-06-2021 when the complainant/respondent No.2 was in his house the present petitioner/accused came to his house and started abusing with filthy language and when respondent No.2/complainant came out from his house and tried to pacify him he assaulted the complainant by hands and fists by which he received injuries. The incident was witnesses by Vishvakant Nirmalkar, Manoj Kumar Sharma and others. On the report lodged by the complainant the FIR has been registered and after investigation charge sheet was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur for the offence under Section 294, 452, 323 and 506 of the IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is being prosecuted for the alleged offence on false complaint made by the complainant. There was no such incident occurred on the alleged 3 day. It is only when the petitioner had gone to the house of the complainant, who is Advocate, for taking assistance for releasing of his son from the jail, he raised quarrel on the issue of settlement of fees and then the came back to his house, but only on apprehension that the petitioner might have committed any offence with him, he lodged the report against him. There is no ingredients of the alleged offence which prima facie constitute offence. He would also submit that on 11-06-2022 respondent No.2/complainant committed marpeet with the petitioner by which his one tooth was broken and on his report the FIR of Crime No.672/2022 for the offence under Section 294, 506, 325 of the IPC has been registered against respondent No.2. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the complainant and the FIR as well as the charge sheet and also the order framing charge dated 05-10-2021 may be quashed against the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent- State would submit that on the report made by the complainant the FIR has been registered and after investigation charge sheet has been filed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant would submit that for the alleged act committed by the petitioner he lodged the report and after due investigation charge sheet was filed against him before the learned trial Court. In the MLC report injuries have been found on the body of the complainant and the incident was witnesses by Vishwakant Nirmalkar and Manoj Kumar Sharma. Therefore, there is no merits in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. At this juncture it would be apposite to refer the settled legal principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down the categories of cases where criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed including the cases where allegations do not prima facie constitute any offence or inherently improbable and it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 102 and 103 that - "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are 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. 5 (2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which criminal proceeding is a instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 6 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." 8. In the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and Another, (2019) 11 SCC 706 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 14 to 16 of its judgment that:- “14. First, we would like to deal with the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 2 that once the charge-sheet is filed, petition for quashing of FIR is untenable. We do not see any merit in this submission, keeping in mind the position of this Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat [(2011) 7 SCC 59 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23]. In Joseph Salvaraj A. [(2011) 7 SCC 59 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23], this Court while deciding the question whether the High Court could entertain the Section 482 petition for quashing of FIR, when the charge-sheet was filed by the police during the pendency of the Section 482 petition, observed : (SCC p. 63, para 16) "16. Thus, from the general conspectus of the various sections under which the appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even prima facie from the complainant's FIR. Even if the charge-sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge [Joesph Saivaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, 2007 SCC OnLine Guj 365] could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant's FIR, charge- sheet, documents, etc. or not." 7 15. Even otherwise it must be remembered that the provision invoked by the accused before the High Court is Section 482 CrPC and that this Court is hearing an appeal from an order under Section 482 CrPC. Section 482 CrPC reads as follows:- “482. Saving of inherent powers of the High Court.—Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 16. There is nothing in the words of this section which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court [G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636, para 7 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513. Umesh Kumar v. State of A.P., (2013) 10 SCC 591, para 20 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 338 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 237] . Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced and the allegations have materialised into a charge-sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge-sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court.” 9. From perusal of the documents annexed with the petition, it transpires that the complainant has lodged a report against the petitioner with respect to the incident that occurred on 29-06-2021 for which the offence of Section 294, 323 and 506 of the IPC was registered in Crime No.752/2021 and charge sheet was filed against the 8 petitioner. As per the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, he also has lodged FIR No.672/2022 for the offence under Section 294, 506, 325 of the IPC which has been registered against respondent No.2 with respect to the incident of marpeet committed by the complainant with him on 11-06-2022 in which his one tooth was broken. 10. From the consideration of the material placed in the petition by the parties concerned and also in view of the strained relation between the petitioner and the complainant and there are report against each other, it would deem appropriate to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR as well as the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 11. In view of the foregoing facts and submissions, this Court finds that the dispute between the parties appears to be personal in nature arising out of a disagreement over fees etc. and the same has been given a criminal colour. There are material inconsistencies in the prosecution story, and the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out, particularly in light of the admitted subsequent incident wherein a counter FIR has been registered against the complainant. The continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law. It is well settled that where the uncontroverted allegations do not disclose the commission of any offence, or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intention, the Court may exercise its inherent powers to secure the ends of justice. 9 12. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned FIR No.752/2021, Charge Sheet/Final Report No.598/2021 dated 30-07-2021, order dated 04-08-2021 of taking cognizance, the order framing charges dated 05-10-2021 and criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No.2502/2021 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur (C.G.) against the petitioner are hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil