1 - Lokesh Garg S/o Shri Madan Lal Garg Aged About 50 Years R/o v. 1 - State of C
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.07.17 17:49:29 +0530 2025:CGHC:33572-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 239 of 2022 1 - Lokesh Garg S/o Shri Madan Lal Garg Aged About 50 Years R/o 640, Bhatagaon, Raipur, P.S.- Tikrapara Dist - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Keshav Garg S/o Lokesh Garg Aged About 21 Years R/o 640, Bhata- gaon, Raipur, P.S. - Tikrapara, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Samip Garg S/o Lokesh Garg Aged About 19 Years R/o -640, Bhata- gaon, Raipur, P.S. - Tikrapara District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Tikrapara, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sanskar Sharma S/o Sanjay Sharma Aged About 27 Years R/o H.No. 612, D.D. Nagar, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Lokesh Garg, Mr. Keshav Garg and Mr. For State/Respondent No.1 Samip Garg, in person. : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Chief Justice , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 1 7 .07.2025 1
Legal Reasoning
proceedings if prima facie its discloses commission of cognizable offence. 7 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned FIR. 8 The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the 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 the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’). 9 In the well celebrated judgment of Bhajan Lal (supra), the Apex Court held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly 7 and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Guidelines are as follows:- “(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 to 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 156(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 every reach a just conclusion that 8 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 a criminal proceeding is 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.” 10 From the plain reading of the FIR and the statements recorded therein, it is manifestly clear that the allegations made against the petitioners are vague, bald, and do not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged under Sections 294, 506, 186, 353, and 34 of the IPC. The FIR itself shows that the alleged incident arose purely out of a dispute regarding the seizure of certain materials (bricks) during the discharge of Municipal Corporation duties. The allegations do not reveal any overt act on the part of the petitioners which would constitute obstruction of public duty within the strict meaning of Sections 186 or 353 IPC. 11 Furthermore, the allegations relating to threats and abuse are general and lack specific particulars, making them wholly 9 insufficient to sustain criminal prosecution. 12 It is further evident that the entire prosecution has been initiated with malice and ulterior motives, arising out of a civil dispute concerning the petitioners’ long-standing possession and pending allotment proceedings of the subject land. The continuation of these criminal proceedings would amount to gross abuse of the process of law and would unnecessarily subject the petitioners to harassment, despite no prima facie offence being made out against them. 13 The entire FIR lodged against the petitioners is manifestly attended with mala fide and 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 and in view of clause (7) of the judgment of the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served if the criminal proceeding against the petitioners is allowed to continue. 14 Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned charge-sheet dated 25.11.2020, arising out of Crime No. 260/2020 registered on 10.07.2020 at Police Station Tikrapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506, 186, 353, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Criminal Case No. 3099/2020 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, 10 Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), does not disclose the commission of any offence and the continuance of such proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. 15 In exercise of the inherent powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, this Court deems it just and proper to quash the said FIR, charge-sheet, and all consequential criminal proceedings. 16 Accordingly, the FIR bearing Crime No. 260/2020, the charge- sheet dated 25.11.2020, and Criminal Case No. 3099/2020 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, are hereby quashed. 17
Arguments
Heard Mr. Lokesh Garg, Mr. Keshav Garg and Mr. Samip Garg, in person. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, 2 appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Ms. Anuja Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 2 The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:- “a. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Call entire records of criminal Case no. 3099/2020, pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur Dist- Raipur (C.G.). b. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash FIR as well as entire Charge-sheet dated 25.11.2020 filed in Crime No.260/2020, dated 10.07.2020, registered at Police Station-Tikrapara, District- Raipur (C.G.), for offence U/s-294, 206, 186, 353, 34of IPC and further please to stay the proceedings in criminal Case no. 3099/2020, pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur Dist- Raipur (C.G.), in the interest of justice. c. This Hon'ble Court may direct the answering respondent not to interfere in peaceful premises belonging to the petitioners. d. This Hon'ble Court may pass any suitable order protecting the rights of the petitioners. In the interest of Justice.” 3 Brief facts of the case, are that the complainant/respondent No.2, working as Sub-Engineer (Civil) in Nagar Nigam, Zone No.06, Raipur, lodged a written complaint on 10.07.2020 at about 8:00 3 p.m. at Police Station Tikrapara, District Raipur (C.G.). In his complaint, he alleged that on the instructions of his senior officials, he, along with Tikendra Chandrakar, Rajesh Patel, Sunny Yadav, and Manrakhan Sahu, went to Bhatagaon, in front of the Government School near the house of petitioner No.1, to seize bricks lying there. At that time, all the petitioners obstructed the official work by standing in front of the JCB vehicle of the Municipal Corporation. When the complainant objected, the petitioners allegedly abused him with filthy language, threatened to kill him, pushed him, and also threatened him with transfer. The incident was witnessed by nearby people. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 294, 506, 186, 353, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioners were arrested and later released on bail. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, on 25.11.2020, registered as Criminal Case No.3099/2020 for the aforementioned offences. The petitioners in person submits that the Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case with malafide intention and ulterior motive. It is submitted that there is no material on record to substantiate the allegations levelled against the petitioners and the FIR has been lodged solely to harass and 4 5 4 humiliate them. Learned counsel further submits that the entire allegations made in the complaint, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 186, 353, and 34 of IPC. It is contended that the prosecution story is highly improbable and does not satisfy the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been in peaceful possession of the Government land in question since the year 2003 and have been using it for storing construction materials. In the year 2020, petitioner No.1 had duly applied for allotment of the said land before the competent revenue authority under the applicable policy of the State Government dated 26.10.2019. Necessary formalities such as obtaining no objection from concerned departments and preparation of Panchnama had been completed, and the matter was pending consideration before the Naib-Tahsildar, Raipur. Relevant documents, including the application for allotment and statement on oath of petitioner No.2, have been placed on record. Learned counsel also submits that on the date of the alleged incident, the Zone Commissioner and police officials had been called by the petitioners and, after verifying the documents relating to allotment proceedings, had directed the complainant and Municipal Corporation staff not to proceed with seizure from the said land. This fact has been supported by documents and photographs placed on record. It is further contended that the present FIR has been lodged out of 5 personal grudge and with a view to settle personal scores, despite the fact that no obstruction in discharge of official duty was ever caused by the petitioners. The continuation of the criminal proceedings would be nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioners are respectable members of society and have been unnecessarily dragged into false criminal litigation, only to malign their reputation in the society. Lastly, learned counsel submits that even assuming the allegations to be true, no ingredients of the alleged offences are made out against the petitioners, and hence, the FIR and entire proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. He relies on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal & Others, (1992) Supp 1 SCC 335 and thereafter relied upon various cases including in the matter of Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna & another v. Peddi Ravindra Babu and another, (2009) 11 SCC 203, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when no specific role is ascribed to any of the persons like the petitioners for such an offence except the bald and vague allegations then registration of criminal case and continuance of the investigation is the abuse of process of court and abuse of process of law. 6 On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of petitioner and submits that when the police found that a cognizable offence is prima facie made out, the FIR was 6 registered and after investigation, charge sheet has also been filed and the criminal case is pending consideration before the learned trial Court. The petitioners have failed to make out any ground in the entire petition which can attract the interference of this Court for quashing the FIR. Even otherwise, it has been reiterated by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions that the Courts should be reluctant to interfere with the criminal
Decision
In the result, instant Cr.M.P. is allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu