1 2026:CGHC:15967-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 187 of 2026 1 - Aarav Roy S/o Ashok Roy Aged About 19 Years R/o- Teachers Colony, Shivalay House, Police Station- Saraswati Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.), Permanent R/o- 01/c-100, Vashi Colony Vishrampur, Police Station- Vishrampur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home/police, Mahanadi, Mantralaya, Police Station- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent Of Police Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Station House Officer Police Station- Devendra Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Krisha Somkuwar Aged About 18 Years 06 Months S/o- Rajendra Somkuwar, R/o- Kabir Nagar, Near Gurunanak Chowk Police Station Kabir Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) .. Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Sr. Advocate, along with Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate. Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.04.15 12:46:38 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 08/04/2026 1. Heard Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Sr. Advocate, along with Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the Respondent/State. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record concerning the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondent authorities for its kind perusal. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash the FIR bearing crime no. 251/2025, dated 21.12.2025 registered at Police Station Devendra Nagar Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) offence punishable U/s 74 of B.N.S. 2023 and further may kindly be please to quash the entire challan bearing No. 01/2026 dated 10.01.2026 for the offences punishable U/s 74 of B.N.S. 2023 (Annexure P/1). 3 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash the impugned order dated 13.01.2026 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) has taken cognizance of the impugned charge sheet and registered the criminal proceeding as criminal case no. 263/2026 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in the matter of "State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Aarav Roy" (Annexure-P/2). 10.4 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent No. 5/complainant lodged a written complaint before Police Station Kabir Nagar, Raipur alleging that the petitioner used to harass her and threaten to make her obscene video viral. It was further alleged that the petitioner used to pressurize her to establish an illicit relationship and, upon her refusal, he would forcibly hold her hand in the premises of MATS College and threaten to outrage her modesty. The complainant also alleged that whenever she talked to one Naman Sahu, the petitioner threatened to put an end to their lives, due to which she remained under constant mental distress and disputes also arose between the petitioner and the said person. On the basis of the complaint, an unnumbered FIR was initially registered at Police Station Kabir 4 Nagar, Raipur for the offence punishable under Section 74 of the BNS, 2023, which was thereafter transferred to Police Station Devendra Nagar, Raipur, where FIR bearing Crime No. 251/2025 dated 21.12.2025 was registered. After completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur on 10.01.2026, and cognizance was taken on 13.01.2026. The case is presently pending before the learned JMFC, Raipur as Criminal Case No. 263/2026, wherein the charges are yet to be framed and the matter was last listed on 18.05.2026 for arguments on charge. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the present FIR is nothing but a counterblast and has been lodged with an oblique motive to falsely implicate the petitioner on baseless and frivolous allegations. It is contended that prior to the registration of the present FIR, the petitioner had lodged a complaint on 19.12.2025 at Police Station Saraswati Nagar, Raipur against Naman Sahu and others for assaulting him, causing serious injuries to his hand, shoulder and the back of his head, on the basis of which an FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and, after completion of investigation, the charge- sheet has already been filed and the matter is pending before the learned JMFC, Raipur. It is further submitted that after registration of the said FIR against Naman Sahu and others, they, in 5 connivance with the present complainant who is a close friend of Naman Sahu, have instigated her to lodge a false complaint against the petitioner in order to pressurize him to compromise the earlier case. It is argued that the allegations made in the present FIR are completely false and motivated, as there is no credible material or evidence to substantiate the allegations that the petitioner had harassed or misbehaved with the complainant. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a student of MATS University pursuing B.Com (Honours), and due to the false implication in the present case he is being subjected to harassment and mental distress which is adversely affecting his academic career and social life. It is thus submitted that the present FIR has been maliciously lodged with the sole intention of wreaking personal vengeance and to exert pressure upon the petitioner in the earlier case registered against Naman Sahu and others. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the submissions and submits that the allegations made in the FIR disclose a prima facie cognizable offence against the petitioner and the same have been registered after due compliance of law. It is submitted that the complainant has specifically alleged that the petitioner had been continuously harassing and threatening her to make her obscene video viral and had also attempted to outrage her modesty by forcibly holding 6 her hand in the premises of MATS College. It is further submitted that the complainant was under constant mental distress due to the conduct of the petitioner and therefore she lodged a written complaint before the police. On the basis of the said complaint, an unnumbered FIR was initially registered at Police Station Kabir Nagar and thereafter the matter was transferred to the competent jurisdiction i.e. Police Station Devendra Nagar, Raipur where FIR bearing Crime No. 251/2025 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 74 of the BNS, 2023. After due investigation, sufficient material was found against the petitioner and the police have already filed the charge-sheet before the learned JMFC, Raipur and cognizance has also been taken. It is thus submitted that the allegations involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C./inherent jurisdiction of this Court and therefore the present petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR and documents annexed with the petition. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The FIR in question has been registered on the basis of a written complaint made by respondent No. 5/complainant alleging harassment and threats by the petitioner to make her obscene video viral and to outrage her modesty. Pursuant to the said complaint, an 7 unnumbered FIR was initially registered at Police Station Kabir Nagar, which was thereafter transferred to Devendra Nagar, Raipur Police Station. After completion of investigation, the police have already filed the charge-sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur and cognizance has also been taken. The case is presently pending before the learned JMFC, Raipur at the stage of consideration on charge. 8. At this stage, the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence. The contention of the petitioner that the FIR is a counterblast and has been lodged with an oblique motive involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Since the trial Court is already seized of the matter and the proceedings are at the stage of framing of charge, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned FIR, the charge-sheet or the order taking cognizance. 9. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of 8 wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. In para 23(i) to (xv), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that:- “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/charge sheet 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: 9 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; 10 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; 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; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the 11 allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; 12 xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. Trial court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.” 10. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the FIR in question has been registered on the basis of a written complaint made by respondent No.5/complainant and, after due investigation, the police have already filed the charge- sheet before the learned JMFC, Raipur who has also taken cognizance of the offence and the case is presently pending at the stage of consideration on charge. The allegations made in the FIR prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence and the plea taken by the petitioner that the FIR is a counterblast involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be examined in exercise of the writ/inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Considering the allegation levelled in the FIR and the material placed on record, as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme 13 Court in the Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Court does not find any good ground for interference. Accordingly, the present petition devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Sd Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok