1 2026:CGHC:16523-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1021 of 2026 Shyamlal Chandani S/o Late Dr. K.D. Lal Chandani Aged About 46 Years R/o Sindhi Colony Near Panchayat Bhawan, Jarahabhatha, P.S. Civil Lines, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Superintendent Of Police, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Station House Officer P.S. Chakarbhata, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Om Prakashh Bajaj S/o Navalmal Bajaj Aged About 58 Years R/o House No. D/4, Minocha Colony, Thana Civil Lines, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondents No.1 and 2/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.04.13 10:35:09 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief(s): “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the impugned FIR Crime No. 447/2025 and the chargesheet filed an offence under section 296, 115 (2), 351 (2) of BNS as well as quash the order-sheet dated 30.12.2025 for taking cognizance in Criminal Case No. 4208/2025 pending before Judicial Magsitrate First Class, Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.), in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts of the case are that the complainant in the present matter had earlier alleged that his nephew, namely Jitendra Bajaj, committed suicide on 16.07.2022 due to alleged harassment by the petitioner. However, after a delay of about two years, the complainant falsely implicated the petitioner by lodging an FIR under Section 306/34 IPC. During the intervening period of two years, neither the complainant nor any of his family members raised any allegation against the petitioner. The aforesaid FIR, charge-sheet and the order taking cognizance were challenged before this Court, and this Court, after due consideration, held that 3 the FIR was an afterthought and based on concocted facts. Consequently, this Court vide order dated 10.07.2025 quashed the charge-sheet as well as the cognizance order. The said order of quashment was further challenged by the complainant’s family members before the Hon’ble Supreme Court; however, the same was dismissed, thereby affirming the findings of this High Court. 4. Being aggrieved by the false implication, harassment and humiliation caused due to the aforesaid malicious prosecution, the petitioner has filed a complaint under Section 223 of BNSS against the complainant and others, which is presently pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur. Thereafter, with a mala fide intention to further harass the petitioner and as a counterblast to the complaint filed by the petitioner, the complainant lodged the present FIR alleging offences under Sections 296, 115(2) and 351(2) of BNS, alleging that the petitioner abused and threatened the complainant during a marriage function of one Mohit Bajaj. The allegations made in the present FIR are false and baseless, as neither the host of the marriage nor any independent witness present at the spot has supported the case of the complainant. Further, the alleged witnesses, namely Suresh Bajaj and Saurabh Bajaj, are interested witnesses and were not even present at the place of the alleged incident. Despite the absence of credible evidence, the police have filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner, and learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilha, has taken cognizance under 4 Sections 296, 115(2) and 351(2) of BNS vide order dated 30.12.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner had also submitted a written complaint to the concerned authorities regarding his false implication; however, no action has been taken against the complainant. Hence, the petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged incident is stated to have occurred during a marriage function of Mohit Bajaj; however, no independent witness, including the host or persons present at the function, has been cited or examined. Instead, only interested witnesses, namely Suresh Bajaj, Saurabh Bajaj, Sharad Bajaj and Sumeet Bajaj who are close relatives of the complainant have been cited. These very witnesses were also involved in the earlier criminal case (Crime No. 636/2024), which has already been quashed by this Court on the ground that the allegations were an afterthought and based on concocted facts. Despite the availability of independent witnesses, their statements have been deliberately withheld, and false statements of related witnesses who were not present at the spot have been recorded with an intention to falsely implicate the petitioner. He further submits that the charge-sheet has been filed solely on the basis of statements of the complainant and his interested relatives, without any corroboration from independent witnesses. The initiation of criminal proceedings on such a charge-sheet clearly reflects mala fide intention and amounts to abuse of the process of law, particularly when the allegations pertain to a petty nature of 5 offence and lack credible supporting evidence. He also submits that the allegation of use of obscene language and threats during the marriage function is not supported by any neutral or independent person present at the event. On the contrary, one witness, namely, Ajay Tehlani, has stated that there was merely an exchange of words between both parties, after which they dispersed. This clearly demonstrates that the complainant has maliciously exaggerated the incident to falsely implicate the applicant. In light of the earlier quashment of similar proceedings involving the same set of witnesses, the present complaint is evidently a continuation of harassment and is nothing but a misuse of the legal process, and therefore, the charge-sheet and consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 2/State opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the FIR discloses prima facie cognizable offences. As such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 8. This Court is guided by the settled principles governing inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS). Interference at the stage of FIR or after filing of charge-sheet is warranted only where: (a) the allegations do not disclose any 6 offence even if taken at face value; or (b) the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides or are maliciously instituted. 9. From perusal of the contents of the FIR, it transpires that complainant, Om Prakash Bajaj, son of Navalmal Bajaj, aged about 58 years and resident of Minocha Colony, Bilaspur (C.G.), has alleged that on 28.10.2025 at about 11:00 P.M., while attending a marriage function of Mohit Bajaj at CPI Hotel, Chakarbhatha, along with his family, accused Shyam Lal Chandani approached him near the party hall and, in connection with a dispute regarding becoming a witness in his case, abused him in filthy language, assaulted him by giving a fist blow on his back and a slap on the back of his head, and pushed him, causing pain; it is further alleged that upon intervention of his nephew Sharad Bajaj, the accused left the spot while extending threats to kill him and his family, and subsequently, when the complainant proceeded towards the parking area to bring his car, the accused again approached him, took out a glass liquor bottle from a car and attempted to assault him, but was restrained by Ajay Tehlani and Vijay Manuja, and that the said incident was witnessed by Sumit Bajaj, Suresh Bajaj, Saurabh Bajaj and Sharad Bajaj, on the basis of which a prima facie offence under Sections 296, 115(2) and 351(2) of the BNS has been registered against the accused/ petitioner. 10. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra 7 and others, (2020) 10 SCC 180, the Supreme 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 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. 11. In State Represented by the Inspector of Police v. M.Maridoss & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.67/2023), decided on 9.1.2023, the Supreme Court has observed that it is a settled position of law that while exercising powers under Section 482, CrPC, the High Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. What is required to be considered at that stage is the nature of accusations and allegations in the FIR and whether the averments/allegations in the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of the cognizable offence or not. 12. It is evident from the FIR that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner that he abused the complainant in filthy language, assaulted him by fist and slap, pushed him 8 causing hurt, and further attempted to assault him with a glass bottle while extending threats to kill. These allegations, if taken at face value, prima facie constitute offences under the relevant provisions of BNS. 13. The contention of the petitioner that the witnesses are interested and no independent witness has been examined pertains to appreciation of evidence, which cannot be undertaken at this stage. Similarly, the defence that the incident has been exaggerated or that the case is a counterblast are matters which require trial and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. Further, the reliance placed on earlier quashment of proceedings does not advance the case of the petitioner, as the present FIR relates to a separate and distinct incident with specific allegations. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has categorically held that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and that the Court should only examine whether the allegations disclose a cognizable offence. Similarly, in M. Maridoss (supra), it has been held that the High Court should not conduct a mini trial while exercising inherent jurisdiction. 15. Applying the aforesaid settled principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations made in the FIR and material collected during investigation do disclose prima facie commission of cognizable offences and do 9 not fall within the category of cases warranting interference at this stage. 16. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition. The petition being devoid of substance is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu