1 2026:CGHC:2368-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 139 of 2026 1. Kejandas Sahu S/o Jeevandas Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Kahadkasa, Police Station Chilhati, District Mohla-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) 2. Jeevandas Sahu S/o Late Shatrughan Sahu Aged About 70 Years R/o Kahadkasa, Police Station Chilhati, District Mohla-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) 3. Kameshwari Sahu W/o Kejandas Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Kahadkasa, Police Station Chilhati, District Mohla-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Police Station Chilhati, District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) 2. Smt. Reena Sakhre W/o Vivek Sakhre Aged About 29 Years R/o Kahadkasa, Police Station Chilhati, District Mohla-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.01.15 17:16:34 +0530 2 For Petitioners : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: “(i) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow instant petition and quash the impugned FIR in Crime No. 67 of 2025 registered in Police Station Chilhati, District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) under Section 296, 351(2), 324(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(1)(2)(c)(z)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 lodged by respondent No. 2 against the petitioners, further the impugned charge- sheet, in the interest of justice. (ii) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the subsequent criminal proceedings in unregistered Special Criminal Case pending before Special Judge (Atrocities), Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (the petitioners are 3 not challenging the order of taking cognizance because till date no cognizance has been taken by the trial Court, because the presiding officer is on leave on 31.11.2025, 24.11.2025, 06.12.2025 and next date is given on 09.01.2026). (iii) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow grant any other relief as deems fit and proper.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners and respondent No. 2 are neighbours. It is contended that respondent No. 2 lodged an undated complaint alleging that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste and that the petitioners abused her by taking the name of her caste. It is alleged that the petitioners uprooted and threw bathroom and septic tank pipes, threatened to record videos of the bathroom and toilet and make them viral on social media, and deliberately diverted rainwater flowing through the village towards her house with the intention of harassing and torturing her family and forcing them to vacate the house. It is further alleged that blockage of the drain resulted in accumulation of rainwater inside her house, causing inconvenience. Respondent No. 2 also alleged that for the last one or two months, the petitioners had tied their cows and bulls near the wall of her house, resulting in foul smell, breeding of mosquitoes and flies, and unhygienic conditions. She further alleged that despite lodging complaints, no FIR was initially registered and that she apprehended the occurrence of an untoward incident. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that petitioner No. 1 had lodged several complaints against respondent No. 2 alleging 4 damage to his boundary wall, obstruction to construction work, and throwing of construction material including bricks. It is submitted that upon such complaints, the police treated the matter as non-cognizable and advised the petitioner to seek appropriate legal remedies. It is contended that the police, being aware that the dispute was purely a neighbourhood dispute involving allegations from both sides, did not initially take cognizance of any cognizable offence and instead initiated preventive proceedings, acknowledging that the dispute pertained to land, bathroom usage, water drainage, and the proposed installation of a camera. It is further submitted that complaints were made by both parties and preventive measures were taken to avoid future disturbances. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 approached senior police authorities, pursuant to which an FIR was registered after considerable delay and a charge-sheet was thereafter filed. It is also submitted that despite filing of the charge-sheet, cognizance has not yet been taken due to the non-availability of the Presiding Officer. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that even if the allegations are taken at face value, no prima facie offence is made out under Sections 296, 351(2), 324(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, or under Sections 3(1)(c), (z), and (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is contended that the allegation of caste-based abuse is vague and general, lacking specific particulars such as date, time, place, or exact words used, and appears to have arisen out of routine neighbourhood disputes. It is further contended that allegations relating to rainwater 5 drainage, foul smell from cattle, mosquitoes, and general inconvenience are common neighbourhood issues which, at best, give rise to civil or municipal disputes and do not constitute criminal offences. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that since preventive proceedings had already been initiated by the police considering the mutual allegations and the neighbourhood nature of the dispute, registration of the FIR on the same set of allegations amounts to harassment and abuse of the process of law. It is contended that keeping cattle is a lawful activity and any incidental inconvenience allegedly caused thereby does not establish criminal intent. It is also submitted that the FIR was lodged after inordinate delay and only after preventive action was taken, clearly demonstrating a mala fide attempt to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute. Hence, the present petition. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions and submits that the investigation was conducted strictly in accordance with law and, upon completion thereof, a charge-sheet has been duly filed before the learned trial Court. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the material placed on record. 9. The legal position governing the quashing of criminal proceedings is well settled. The power to quash an FIR, complaint, or charge-sheet is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances. Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the investigation or prosecution of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or 6 complaint, even if 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, the FIR or charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has illustratively laid down the categories of cases wherein such power may be exercised. The said principle has been consistently reiterated in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, and more recently in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 73, wherein it has been held that courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering at the stage of investigation or after filing of the charge-sheet, unless the case falls within the exceptional categories warranting such interference. 11. In the present case, from a careful perusal of the FIR and the charge-sheet, it appears that on 09.09.2025, the complainant Reena Sabre, wife of Vivek Sabre, aged 28 years, belonging to the Mahar caste and resident of Village Kahadkasa, Police Station Chilhaty, District Mohla–Manpur–Ambagarh Chowki, submitted a complaint against the accused persons alleging that on 23.03.2025, when she and her mother-in-law questioned the accused regarding the uprooting of water drainage and septic tank pipes, all the accused persons, acting with 7 common intention, abused them with filthy and caste-based language, threatened them with death, attempted to assault her mother-in-law with a stick, threatened to record and circulate obscene videos on social media, caused damage to property, blocked rainwater drainage resulting in flooding of her house, installed a camera facing her bathroom and toilet, tied cattle near her kitchen wall causing unhygienic conditions, removed construction material, continuously harassed and taunted her with caste-based remarks over a prolonged period, and threatened witnesses, thereby causing mental harassment and humiliation. On the basis of these allegations, offences under the aforesaid provisions were registered and investigation was carried out. 12. Upon considering the nature of the allegations, this Court finds that the FIR and the charge-sheet disclose specific allegations of caste- based abuse, threats, intimidation, and acts allegedly committed with the intention to humiliate the complainant on the ground of her caste. The allegations cannot be said to be wholly vague or devoid of particulars at this stage. Whether the allegations are ultimately proved or not is a matter for trial. At the stage of considering a petition for quashing, this Court is not expected to embark upon an appreciation of evidence or adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Thirukkural Perumal, reported in (1995) 2 SCC 449. 13. The existence of a neighbourhood dispute or prior preventive proceedings, by itself, does not render the FIR an abuse of the process 8 of law, particularly when the complaint discloses cognizable offences and the investigation has culminated in the filing of a charge-sheet. Merely because a civil dispute is also involved, criminal proceedings cannot be quashed if the ingredients of the alleged offences are prima facie made out. 14. In view of the settled legal position and the factual matrix of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for interference is made out in exercise of its extraordinary or inherent jurisdiction. 15. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan