Vishnu Prasad Sharma S/o Late Shri Uday Lal Sharma Aged About 56 Years Occupation v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Out Post Tumdibod, Police
Case Details
1 / 9 2025:CGHC:16155-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1228 of 2025 Vishnu Prasad Sharma S/o Late Shri Uday Lal Sharma Aged About 56 Years Occupation- Teacher (L.B.), Government Middle School, Dewanbhedi, R/o Ward No. 10, Dongargaon, Tehsil Dongargaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Out Post Tumdibod, Police Station Lalbagh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Geetanjali Sahu W/o Dhananjay Kumar Sahu Aged About 36 Years Presently Residing At Ward No. 2, Sant Ravidas Colony, Dongargaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner For State : :
Legal Reasoning
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 Cr.P.C. 11. In the well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, the Apex Court held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly 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. 6 / 9 (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 there is sufficient ground for proceedingagainst the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in 7 / 9 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." 12. In case of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill; reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi; reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors; reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Apex Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the 8 / 9 FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 13. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the 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 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 ofF.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 14. Keeping in view the aforesaid law and considering the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the submissions raised by learned counsel for petitioner relate to the questions of fact, and thus, can not be examined by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS). The appreciation of evidence or the reliability of the allegations cannot be examined at this stage. 15. From the above stated case laws, it is apparent that the above 9 / 9 stated contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner can not be examined by this Court. The adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS). In view of the material on record, it can not be held that the impugned criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. FIR or criminal proceedings can be quashed only in accordance with parameters laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. 16. In the instant case, from the perusal of the FIR lodged by the complainant, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. The present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction to quash the impugned FIR and further proceedings. 17. In view of aforesaid, the petition lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. 18. The CRMP is, accordingly, dismissed SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Judge ashu
Arguments
Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate Mr. Sakib Ahmad, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per, Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 07/04/2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.04.11 11:21:59 +0530 2 / 9 2. Heard Mr. Rajendra Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sakib Ahmad, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No.1/State. 3. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with following prayer:- I. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed by the petitioner. II. To Kindly quash the F.I.R. dated 30/01/2025 bearing No.40/2025 for the offences under sections 75, 126 (2), 351 (2) of the Bharitya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) registered at Out Post Tumdibod, Police Station Lalbagh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Annexure P/1). III. And to kindly grant any other relief to the petitioner as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted to petitioner. 4. Brief facts of the case are that Respondent no. 2 had lodged a report before the police of Out Post Tumdibod Police Station Lalbagh alleging that she is a resident of Dongargaon and posted as Head Master in Government Primary School Dewanbhedi and the petitioner is also posted as a Teacher (L.B.), Government Middle School, Dewanbhedi which is situated nearby the school of the Respondent no. 2. It has been alleged in the complaint that 3 / 9 the petitioner on 25/09/2023 came to the complainant's school under the pretext of collecting donations, at that time the Respondent no. 2 was sitting alone in the office and was giving donation to the petitioner and suddenly the petitioner grabbed the hand and waist of the Respondent no. 2. The petitioner further threatened the Respondent no. 2 that he will defame her if she discloses this incident to anyone. It is further alleged that Respondent no. 2 due to fear did not disclose the incident to anyone. 5. Subsequently on 22/01/2025 when the Respondent no. 2 was going towards the market, the petitioner stopped her under the pretext of not having physical relation with her and then threatened to kill her and get her suspended under false accusation stating that he already had one person suspended. On the basis of the said allegations and FIR under sections 75, 126 (2), 351 (2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023 was registered against the present petitioner. 6. Respondent no. 2 is a resident Sant Ravidas Colony, Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)., and she had initially approached the Police Station Dongargaon for registering the FIR against the petitioner, but the Police officials of Police Station Dongargaon found the allegations of the Respondent no. 2 false and baseless and refused to lodge the FIR against the petitioner. Thereafter, the Respondent no. 2 approached the Out Post Tumdibod, Police Station Lalbagh and an FIR was registered 4 / 9 against the petitioner. The petitioner had preferred an anticipatory bail application before this Hon'ble Court and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in MCRCA 224/2025 vide order dated 13/02/2025. 7. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and no plausible explanation with regard to such delay. He would next contend that the petitioner is a Teacher in Government Middle School, Dewanbhedi, Rajnandgaon and he performs his duties with utmost sincerity for which he has been given award. He would next contend that the instant complaint has been filed only to harass the petitioner on the basis of a concocted story and also to tarnish the image of the petitioner. He would next contend that the present complaint is a forged, the same would be evident from the fact that in the pat the petitioner has given his services in different campuses and he is having an experience of 16 years of service and no allegations were leveled against him. As such, the instant petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned FIR and further proceedings deserve to be quashed. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Sakib Ahmad, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the FIR discloses the cognizable offence against the petitioner and as 5 / 9 such, no interference is called for. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned FIR produced by the learned State counsel. 10. 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