Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:16619-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1272 of 2025 1. Sameer Khan S/o Sameem Khan Aged About 22 Years R/o Nehru Nagar Tajiya Chowk, Balconagar, Police Station Balco, District Korba (C.G.) 2. Salman Khan S/o Sameem Khan Aged About 20 Years R/o. Nehru Nagar Tajiya Chowk, Balconagar, Police Station Balco, District Korba (C.G.) 3. Sameem Khan S/o Sarif Khan Aged About 44 Years R/o. Nehru Nagar Tajiya Chowk, Balconagar, Police Station Balco, District Korba (C.G.) 4. Abdul Benam S/o Marhum Abdul Kalam Aged About 38 Years R/o. Nehru Nagar Tajiya Chowk, Balconagar, Police Station Balco, District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police of Police Station Balco, District Korba (C.G.) (Prosecution) 2.
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Khairun Nisha W/o Shabir Ali Aged About 36 Years R/o Nehru Nagar, Balco, District Korba (C.G.) (Complainant) ...Respondent(s) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.04.15 11:15:25 +0530 For Petitioners For Respondent/State : : Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate. Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 09.04.2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 1/State. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: “1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR dated 03.01.2025 registered at Police Station Balco, District Korba (C.G.) under Crime No. 14 of 2025 for the commission of offences punishable under Section 74 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 lodged by complainant/respondent No. 2 herein namely Smt. Khairun Nisha. 2. Any other reliefs, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioner.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the victim/complainant/respondent No. 2 herein lodged the written report against the petitioners at Police 3 Station Balco, District Korba (C.G.) on 03.01.2025 stating therein that she is residing at Nehru Nagar, Balco along with her family. On 31.10.2024, at about 10:15 p.m., there was hue and cry in the name of bursting of crackers outside of her house, when she along with her husband went to outside her home then they saw that the petitioners were assaulting her sons, namely, Anwar and Arif and when she objected the same then the petitioners assaulted her with intent to outrage her modesty and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. On the basis of the written complaint lodged by respondent No. 2, the concerned Police have registered the case against the petitioners for commission of offences punishable under Sections 74 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’) in connection with Crime No. 14 of 2025 at Police Station Balco, District Korba (C.G.). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners and the complainant are residing in same locality at Nehru Nagar, Tajiya Chowk, Balco, District Korba (C.G.). He also submits that it is a total case of false implication for the reasons that the victim/complainant has not brought to the actual picture at the time of lodging of FIR, which was happened on the date of incident. On the said date i.e. on 31.10.2024 at about 10:15 p.m., when the petitioner No. 3 herein, namely, Sameem Khan was returning his home after completing his duty and when he reached near his house at that time the complainant along with her entire family members abused him and also assaulted by stone to his head and sustained injuries over his head. 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that immediately after the incident was took place, the petitioner No. 3, 4 namely, Sameem Khan rushed to the Police Station and lodged the FIR on the same day against the respondent No. 2 and against her husband and two sons. An FIR was registered at Police Station Balco, District Korba (C.G.) on the complaint of the petitioner No. 3 bearing Crime No.585 of 2024 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2) and 3(5) of the BNS. After completion of the investigation, the concerned Police have filed the charge-sheet before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba, District Korba on 06.12.2024 against the complainant of this case and against her family members. Thereafter, a counter FIR was registered against the petitioners by the husband of the respondent No. 2, namely, Sabeer Ali alleging therein that on 31.10.2024, at about 10:15 p.m. some altercation was took place in between the petitioners and with his family in the name of bursting of the crackers and this incident was reported by the husband of the respondent No. 2 herein and on the basis of the complaint, an FIR was registered bearing Crime No. 586/2024 against the petitioners for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2) and 3(5) of the BNS. After completion of the investigation, the concerned Police have filed the charge-sheet before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba, District Korba on 16.11.2024 against the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that a counter case was registered by the husband of the complainant against the petitioners in respect of the same incident which was took place on 31.10.2024 at about 10:20 p.m., but in that FIR No. 586/2024, the allegation with respect to outrage the modesty of the complaint was missing. There was no any allegation with regard to the allegation made in the present FIR i.e. Crime 5 No. 14/2015 made by the respondent No. 2. herein. He would submit that if the incident was took place on the same day at the same time then the allegation made in the present FIR may also be included, but same was not included, therefore, it is a total case of false implication. The date and time mentioned in the previous FIR and present FIR are same and the incident was also same, but the allegation made in the present FIR is developed only to falsely implicate the petitioners. He further submits that there was long delay in lodging of FIR in the present case and there is no explanation about the delay in lodging the FIR if the allegation made in the present case was took place at the same time then why same was not lodged on the same date in the same FIR No. 586 of 2024. 8. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is total case of false implication and there is no any substance in the complaint of the complainant. He further contended that no ingredients of the offences as alleged are attracted in this case and prima facie it appears that respondent No. 2 has lodged the forged case against the petitioners. Hence, the impugned FIR bearing No. 14 of 2025 is liable to be quashed. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of petitioners and would submit that once the FIR has been registered, it has to be investigated and taken to its logical end. Thus, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned FIR. 11. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings 6 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 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) or under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 12. 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. (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 ofÏcers 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 7 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 ofÏcer 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 sufÏcient 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 efÏcacious 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.” 13. 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 8 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 FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 14. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (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 of the 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 528 of the BNSS or under Section 482 of the 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. 15. 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, cannot be examined by this Court in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS or under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The appreciation of evidence or the reliability of the allegations cannot be examined at this stage. 9 16. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 540, it has been held that probabilities of the prosecution version cannot be analysed at this stage. Likewise, the allegations of mala fides of the informant are of secondary importance. The relevant passage reads thus: (SCCp. 550, para 11) “11......It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with.” 17. From the above stated case laws it is apparent that the above stated contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot 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 528 of the BNSS or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record, it cannot be held that the impugned criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with malafide 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. 18. From the perusal of impugned FIR, it transpires that on 31.10.2024, at about 10.15 p.m., a commotion was taking place in front of the house of 10 complainant/respondent No. 2. When respondent No. 2 and her husband went outside to investigate, they saw the petitioners attempting to beat their children, Anwar and Arif, for bursting firecrackers. When the husband of respondent No. 2 intervened, the petitioners physically assaulted him. When respondent No. 2 tried to intervene, petitioner No. 2, Salman Khan molested the respondent No. 2 by snatching her dupatta and throwing it to the ground. Petitioner No. 4, Abdul Benam tore her clothes and petitioner No. 1, Sameer Khan and petitioner No. 3, Sameem Khan also molested the respondent No. 2, therefore, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Thus, the present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction Section 528 of the BNSS or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to quash the impugned FIR. Hence, no ground exists for quashing of the FIR. 19. In view of aforesaid, the petition lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. 20. Accordingly, the present CRMP is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to law, if they have any apprehension of arrest. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan