1 - Minor X Aged About 17 Years Nil 2 - Minor Y Aged v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Of
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.07.16 10:28:44 +0530 2025:CGHC:32883-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 746 of 2022 1 - Minor X Aged About 17 Years Nil 2 - Minor Y Aged About 15 Years Nil 3 - Minot Z Aged About 7 Years Nil 4 - Bharti Sharma Wife Of Bajrang Sharma Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No.5, Durga Mandir Ward, Naya Baradwar, P.S. Baradwar 5 - Pooja Sharma Wife Of Gopal Sharma Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 5, Durga Mandir Ward, Naya Baradwar, P.S. Baradwar ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Baradwar 2 - Superintendent of Police Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - A B C (Details Filed In Closed Envelope). (As Per Honble Court Order Dated 04-07-2025 And 10-07-2025). ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Chief Justice , Judge
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 3. 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be quash the First Information Report dated 11-12-2020 registered at Police Station Baradwar, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) vide Crime No.363/2020 for the offence under Section 354, 294, 506 Read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned State counsel submits that he has informed the complainant with regard to pendency of the present petition, but she neither approached this Court personally or through her counsel to contest the case. 4. Since the matter pertaining to the year 2020, we hereby proceed to hear the matter finally. 5. Brief facts of the case, are that, the complainant namely Smt. Maya Devi lodged a written complaint before the Police to the effect that on 08.12.2020, the main accused Ramesh Sharma, his daughter in-law's and granddaughters (minors) have abused, misbehaved with her as also threatened her using abusive and filthy language. The police immediately after receiving the written complaint lodged the First Information Report against Ramesh Sharma, his daughter in-laws and the granddaughters (minors) on 3 the same day i.e. 11.12.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 294, 506 Read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case with ulterior motive and malafide intention. He further submits that the petitioners and complainants are neighbours and petitioners No.1 to 3 are minors (juvenile), whereas petitioners No.4 and 5 are their mothers, respectively. It is submitted that on 08.12.2020, the complainant abused Smt. Pushpa Devi Sharma wife of Ramesh Sharma and grandmother of petitioners No.1 to 3 as well as mother-in-law of petitioners No.4 and 5 on the suspicion that she has performed some witchcraft over her family due to which, one of the family member has died. It is further submitted that the said incident was promptly reported to the Police Station Baradwar on 09.12.2020 by Smt. Pushpa Devi Sharma. It has been contended that the Police of Police Station Baradwar did not act upon the complaint made by Pushpa Devi Sharma on 09.12.2020 and on the other hand, acting with collusion with the complainant Smt. Maya Devi, registered an FIR against the petitioners on 11.12.2020 with respect to alleged incident, which was taken place on 08.12.2020. The entire complaint made by the complainant is an afterthought only to save herself and seek vengeance. It has been further contended that from perusal of the FIR, it would be crystal clear that the entire story projected by the 4 prosecution is a concocted one and nothing happened on the said date, whereas the complainant abused Smt. Pushpa Devi Sharma which was promptly reported to the police, but the police has not taken any action against her. It has been further contended that there is unexplained delay of three days in lodging the FIR by the complainant as the alleged incident took place on 08.12.2020 and the FIR was lodged on 11.12.2020. Hence, the impugned FIR dated 11.12.2020 bearing Crime No.363/2020 is false and is liable to be quashed. 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. 7. 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 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 5 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 proceedings if prima facie its discloses commission of cognizable offence. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned FIR. 9. 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.’). 10. In the well celebrated judgment of Bhajan Lal (supra), 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 6 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 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 7 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.” 11. Upon careful consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the FIR lodged by the complainant appears to be an afterthought and a counterblast to the earlier complaint made by Smt. Pushpa Devi Sharma on 09.12.2020. The records reveal that there is an unexplained delay of three days in lodging the FIR by the complainant with respect to the alleged incident of 08.12.2020. Furthermore, the petitioners No. 1 to 3 are admittedly minors, and the nature of allegations made against them and their mothers, petitioners No. 4 and 5, appears to be vague, motivated, and lacking in specific details necessary to constitute the offences alleged. 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 8 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. 12. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, the absence of any direct and cogent material implicating the petitioners, and the existence of a prior complaint lodged against the complainant herself, it appears that the present FIR has been lodged with mala fide intentions and ulterior motives. Continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 13. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned FIR dated 11.12.2020 bearing Crime No.363/2020 registered at Police Station Baradwar for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 294, 506 read with 34 of the IPC is liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 14. In the result, the petition is allowed. The FIR dated 11.12.2020 bearing Crime No.363/2020 registered at Police Station Baradwar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu