1 2026:CGHC:16071 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 330 of 2024 1 - Shashi Bhushan (S.B. Pandey) Advocate, S/o Shri R.S. Pandey, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Jorapara, New Sarkanda, P.S. Sarkanda, Tahsil and District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dr. Vishwakant Nirmalkar S/o Shri Makhanlal, Occupation Doctor, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Kanhaiya City, Qtr. No. B-36, Bandhwapara, Police Station Sarkanda, Tahsil and District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Superintendent of Police, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Station House Officer, Through The Superintendent of Police, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Laxminarayan Kesar S/o Sukhru Kesar, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Awaspara, Nagoi, Police Station Sarkanda, Tahsil and District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. S.B. Pandey, Advocate. For State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.3 : Mr., Ramsajiwan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.04.13 12:15:51 +0530 2 Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 08-04-2026 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the CrP.C. for quashing of FIR of Crime No.672/2022 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur for the offence under Section 294, 506, 325, 34 of the IPC and prayed for following relief(s):- “It is therefore prayed that, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to aloe this petition and quash the F.I.R. No. 672/2022 dated 13/06/2022 registered against the petitioners for the offence U/s. 294, 506, 325, 34 of I.P.C. by the Police Station Sarkanda District Bilaspur (C.G.), in the interest of Justice.” 2. The subject matter in brief is that on 11-06-2022 at about 07:30 p.m. when complainant Laxminarayan Kesar was returning to his house along with his friends, at Jorapara he met with the present petitioners/accused persons and there was altercation took place between them on account of earlier money transaction between them. It is alleged that the petitioners/accused persons assaulted the complainant by hands and fists by which his one tooth was broken. His friends intervened in the altercation. On the report lodged by the complainant the FIR of Crime No.672/2022 was registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur for the offence under Section 294, 506, 325, 34 of I.P.C. against the petitioners. After due process of investigation charge sheet has also been filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Bilaspur for the offence under Section 294, 506, 325, 3 34 of the IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that earlier on 29-06-2021 the present complainant Laxminarayan Kesar committed marpeet with him for which he lodged a report against him and FIR of Crime No.752/2021 was registered at Police Station Sarkanda for the offence under Section 294, 323 and 506 of the IPC in which charge sheet has been filed against him. In that report, lodged by the present petitioner No.1 against complainant Laxminarayan Kesar the petitioner No.2 Dr. Vishwakant Nirmalkar was the witness. He pressurized him to compromise in the case and when the petitioners refused to compromise the case, he lodged the report against the petitioners. He would further submit that in the present matter the incident is alleged to be occurred on 11-06-2022, whereas, the report was lodged after about two days, i.e., on 13-06-2022 and there is no explanation for delay. He would also submit that the complainant is having criminal antecedents and involved in other cases also with respect to Crime No.1259/2022 registered at Police Station Sarkanda for the offence under Section 294, 323, 506, 34 of the IPC and the offence of Crime No.239/2022 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur for the offence under Section 294, 323, 506, 34 of the IPC. The petitioner No.1 had made a complaint on 30-12-2022 to the higher police authorities for proper investigation into the matter. The petitioners’ complaint has not been properly investigated and they have been made accused in the case. The petitioner No.1 is a practicing Advocate having 25 years of length of active practice. He is a law abiding citizen and has not involved in any 4 act of marpeet with the complainant. The complainant only to settle personal score lodged the report against the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned FIR and the entire consequential criminal proceedings may be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent/State would submit that on the report made by the complainant FIR has been registered and after investigation charge sheet has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/complainant would also submit that on the date of incident the petitioners/accused persons assaulted him by hands and fists by which his one tooth was broken. On his report the FIR has been registered and in the MLC report injuries have been found on his body. The incident is witnessed by eye- witnesses Sewaram Suryavanshi and Parsadi Suryavanshi and there is no scope for any interference or to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings and the petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed. 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 5 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. (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 6 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. 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 7 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." 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 8 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 present petitioner No.1 lodged a report against respondent No.3/complainant 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 respondent No.3/complainant. In that complaint the petitioner No.2 is the witness. 10. The present FIR has been lodged by the complainant, who was accused in Crime No.752/2021 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur lodged by petitioner No.1, with respect to the alleged incident of 11-06-2022 and FIR was lodged on 13-06-2022. From the document Annexure-P/4 it further transpires that the petitioner No.1 made a complaint to the higher police authorities for proper investigation into the matter and requested to enquire about the genuineness of the alleged 9 incident from CCTV footage of the spot. It further transpires that there are other offences registered against the present complainant at Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur. 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 and resentment between the parties 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 earlier incident wherein one earlier FIR has been registered against the complainant by petitioner No.1 in the year 2021. 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. 12. From the consideration of the material placed in the petition by the parties concerned and also in view of the strained relation between the petitioners and the complainant and there are report against each other and also that there are other FIRs registered against the complainant, 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 petitioners. 13. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned FIR No.672/2022 dated 13-06-2022 registered against 10 the petitioners for the offence under Section 294, 506, 325, 34 of the IPC at Police Station Sarkanda District Bilaspur (C.G.) and subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioners are hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil