Alok Mandal S/o Shri Shatrughan Mandal Aged About 43 Years Caste - Surhi, R/o v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:21132-DB NAFR BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.05.09 11:05:26 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1573 of 2025 Alok Mandal S/o Shri Shatrughan Mandal Aged About 43 Years Caste - Surhi, R/o P.W.D. Colony, Patthalgaon, District - Jashpur (C.G.), At Present R/o House No. - 40, Ward No.-08, Near New Market, Ahirwara, Police Station - Nandini Nagar, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station - Patthalgaon, District - Jashpur (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Sushila Kaithal W/o Shri Paras Lal Kaithal Aged About 41 Years R/o P.W.D. Colony, Patthalgaon, Police Station - Patthalgaon, District - Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) For Respondent : : No.1/State Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate. Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 08.05.2025 1.
Legal Reasoning
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 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. (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 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. 9 (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." 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 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 10 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 of F.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 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 of Cr.P.C (now 528 of the BNSS). The appreciation of evidence or the reliability of the allegations cannot be examined at this stage. 15. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo : (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." 11 16. From the above stated case laws, it is apparent that the above stated contentions raised by 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 528 BNSS. In view of the material on record and looking to the injuries caused by the petitioner to the respondent No.2, 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. 17. 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 under Section 528 of BNSS. to quash the impugned FIR. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. 18. In view of aforesaid, the petition lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. 19. The CRMP is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Bablu 12
Arguments
Heard Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, learned counsel for the petitioner as well 2 as Mr.Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No.1/State. 2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with following prayer: “(i) It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and pleased to quash the First Information Report No. 0124/2024 vide First Information Report dated 25.06.2024 for the offence under section 294, 506, 323 of IPC registered by Police Station- Patthalgaon, District-Jashpur (C.G.), in the interest of justice. (ii) It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and pleased to quash the Charge Sheet No. 108/2024 vide Charge Sheet dated 20/08/2024 for the offence under section for the offence under section 294, 506, 323, 325 of IPC and under section 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (v) क of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 filed against the petitioner by Police Station-Patthalgaon, District-Jashpur (C.G.), in the interest of justice. (iii) It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and pleased to quash the order of Cognizance dated 02/09/2024, by which the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) has taken the cognizance in Charge Sheet No. 325 108/2024 for the offence under section 294, 506, 323, 325 of IPC and under section 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (v) क of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the petitioner in Special Criminal Case No. 17/2024 in State of Chhattisgahrh Versus Alok Mandal, in the interest of justice. (iv) It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and pleased to quash the order of Charge dated 27/11/2024 by which the learned Special Judge Scheduled Caste and Scheduled 3 Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) has framed charges under section 294, 323 (2 times), 325, 506 of IPC and under section 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (v) क of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the petitioner in Special Criminal Case No. 17/2024 in State of Chhattisgahrh Versus Alok Mandal, in the interest of justice. (v) It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash/set-aside the further Criminal Proceedings in Special Criminal Case No. 17/2024 in State of Chhattisgahrh Versus Alok Mandal, in the interest of justice. (vi) Any other relief/order may also be granted that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case. An afÏdavit in support of the petition is filed herewith.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.06.2024 F.I.R No. 0124/2024 has been registered by Police Station-Patthalgaon, District-Jashpur (C.G.) against the petitioner under Sections 294, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code on written complaint made by respondent No. 2 stating that she is residing at P.W.D. Colony Patthalgaon along with family members, her husband is working as Sub-Engineer at P.W.D., on 25/06/2024 at about 7.00-7.30 P.M. the petitioner/accused abused indicating her caste as well as assaulted her through hand & kick and she received several injuries upon her face, hand, leg and ear. After lodging the F.I.R. by the respondent No. 02, the petitioner has been arrested by the prosecution authorities, in the meanwhile respondent No. 02/Victim brought hospital for her medical examination and thereafter police ofÏcers of Police Station-Patthalgaon have conducted inquiry, recoded statement of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code 4 1973 and after completion of investigation by police ofÏcers of concerned police station, charge-sheet No. 108/2024 has been filed before the learned Special Judge Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 Jashpur, District-Jashpur (C.G.) on 20.8.2024 for offence under Sections 294, 325, 506 and 323 of the IPC and under Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (v) क Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the petitioner, by which the learned Special Judge Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) has taken cognizance in Charge Sheet No. 108/2024 for offence under Sections 294, 506, 323 and 325 of IPC and under Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (v) क of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the petitioner and thereafter registered Special Criminal Case No. 17/2024 and learned Special Judge Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 Jashpur, District-Jashpur (C.G.) has framed charges under Sections 294, 323 (2 times), 325, 506 of IPC and under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (v) क of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the petitioner. 4. Earlier the petitioner has preferred Cr. M. P. No. 1353/2025 before this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22/04/2025 with liberty to file afresh petition subject to depositing the cost of rupee 2000/-. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned FIR dated 25.06.2024 registered at Police Station Patthalgaon, District - Jashpur (C.G.) in Crime No. 0124/2024 under Sections 294, 506, 323 of the IPC is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. The petitioner is a Divisional Account OfÏcer (Central Government Employee) and husband of the respondent 5 No.2 is working as Assistant Engineer, both are working at PWD ofÏce Patthalgaon, District-Jashpur (C.G.) where after inspection of the petitioner amount have to be released for payments of any contractor/workers, meanwhile ofÏce bearers of the PWD have facing difÏculties due to honesty of the petitioner and then targeted him with the help of respondent No.2. he further submits that no any offence is made out against the petitioner under the aforementioned sections and therefore registration of First Information Report No. 0124/2024 vide First Information Report dated 25/06/2024 for offence under Sections 294, 506, 323 and 325 of the IPC registered by Police Station-Patthalgaon, District-Jashpur (C.G.), filling of the Charge Sheet No. 108/2024 vide Charge Sheet dated 20/08/2024 for offence under Section 294, 506, 323 and 325 of the IPC and under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (v) क of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the petitioner, order taking cognizance dated 02/09/2024, order of charge dated 27/11/2024 by which the learned Special Judge Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 Jashpur, District-Jashpur (C.G.) has framed charges under Sections 294, 323 (2 times), 325, 506 of the IPC and under Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the petitioner and further Criminal Proceedings of Special Criminal Case No. 17/2024 in State Of Chhattisgarh Versus Alok Mandal are liable to be quash/set-aside. 6. He also submits that prior to few months, the petitioner joined his service at PWD ofÏce Patthalgaon and started living at Employees residential quarter and he had no knowledge about caste of any employees, some dispute has happened amongst them during the course of removing the petitioner’s car from the parking place where car of the responent No.2 6 was parked in front door of the garage and at that time, the incident took place. He contended that the petitioner is the Central Government employee and dispute has happened for removing the car only during the course of duty period and prior to prosecute any government servant permission for prosecution from the competent authority is required, but the prosecution authorities did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As such, registration of First Information Report No. 0124/2024 vide First Information Report dated 25/06/2024 for offence under Sections 294, 506, 323 of IPC registered by Police Station-Patthalgaon, District-Jashpur (C.G.), filling of the Charge Sheet No. 108/2024 vide Charge Sheet dated 20/08/2024 for offence under Sections 294, 506, 323, 325 of IPC and under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (v) क of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 filed against the petitioner, order taking cognizance dated 02/09/2024, order of charge dated 27/11/2024 by which the learned Special Judge Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 Jashpur, District-Jashpur (C.G.) has framed charges under Sections 294, 323 (2 times), 325, 506 of the IPC and under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (v) क of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the petitioner and further Criminal Proceedings of Special Criminal Case No. 17/2024 in State Of Chhattisgarh Versus Alok Mandal are liable to be quash/set-aside. 7. He also contended that during the course of working period of the petitioner, he found irregularities in the construction work of Lailunga- Kotba-Lavakera road, then a letter was forwarded by him to higher authorities and after publishing the aforesaid news in the daily news paper “Dainik Bhaskar”, some villagers have also filed W.P. (PIL) 7 No.77/2024 before this Court against the irregularities in the construction work of Lailunga-Kotba-Lavakera way road, as such, false implication of the petitioner is clearly shown in crime in question and therefore registration of First Information Report No. 0124/2024 vide First Information Report dated 25/06/2024 for offence under Sections 294, 506, 323 of the IPC registered by Police Station-Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur (C.G.), filling of the Charge Sheet No. 108/2024 vide Charge Sheet dated 20/08/2024 for offence under Sections 294, 506, 323, 325 of the IPC and under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (v) क of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 filed against the petitioner, order taking cognizance dated 02/09/2024, order of charge dated 27/11/2024 by which the learned Special Judge Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 Jashpur, District-Jashpur (C.G.) has framed charges under Sections 294, 323 (2 times), 325, 506 of IPC and under Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (v) क of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the petitioner and further Criminal Proceedings of Special Criminal Case No. 17/2024 are liable to be quash/set-aside. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No.1/State opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has already been filed and the trial Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner and already framed the charge against him. As such, the petition deserves to be quashed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 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- 8 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