Akshay Sharma S/o Rahul Sharma Aged About 19 Years R/o Sailini Pairadais, Daldal Sivni v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:22417-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1753 of 2025 Akshay Sharma S/o Rahul Sharma Aged About 19 Years R/o Sailini Pairadais, Daldal Sivni, Mova, Pandri, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Pandri, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Xyz (Complainant) ---- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate. Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29.05.2025 1. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition under Section 482
Legal Reasoning
of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR dated 29.04.2025 registered at Police Station Pandri, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Crime No. 83/2025 under Sections 75, 296 and 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2023 and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. 2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with following prayer: (a)“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Set aside/quash the FIR No. 0083/2025 registered at Police Station-Pandri, District Raipur (C.G.) against the petitioner for the offences punishable under 75, 296, 351(3) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012. (b)pass any other order(s) that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.04.2025, a minor altercation occurred in the apartment premises involving some local boys. The said matter was amicably resolved at Police Station Pandri in the same evening through intervention of the society members, and the guardians of the involved minors. After a few days, on 29.04.2025, complainant/respondent No. 2, a resident of the same society and an advocate by profession, lodged a complaint on behalf of her minor daughter, leading to registration of FIR No 0083/2025 dated 29.04.2025 at Police Station Pandri under Sections 75, 296, 351(3), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, with the intent that on 22/04/25 in the afternoon, Akshay Sharma, Ishaan, and boys named Adarsh surrounded her daughter with steel sticks in their hands and threatened her that they will beat 3 her and her mother with these sticks and her father will not be able to do anything. Her daughter came home scared. On the same day around 6-7 pm in the evening, two boys Akshay, Ishan, Bhuju Devangan, Sonia Sharma, 6-7 women of the society and Akshay's father also gathered and forcibly dragged her daughter out of the house by her hand and brought her to the society compound and gathered a crowd and started beating her. Sonia Sharma used obscene words in her absence and said that her minor daughter is involved in prostitution. Particularly Sonia Sharma and her family have been behaving indecently with her daughter for many months. In her absence, they beat her daughter and say that you do prostitution. He will bury her in the ground, her mother and her parents are bad people, you are also like that, saying this, her daughter is being harassed by abusing her. Due to which her daughter is mentally nervous and scared. Her daughter is being harassed mentally by behaving indecently with her, her daughter is being defamed and insulted by Sonia Sharma in the whole society. Some women of the society use dirty words and look at her daughter with dirty eyes. On 23/04/25 at 11 am, as soon as her daughter came back home from school in the lift, someone wrote in red color in the lift that he will kill her, whose information was given to her by Ghosh Bhaiya of the society who was visiting her house, he took her photo and put it in the society group and wrote that he will give it to the police, then immediately someone tried to erase it from the lift. In her absence, her minor daughter is being harassed and threatened to be killed by the boys living in the society, Akshay 4 Sharma, Sonia Sharma, Rahul Sharma, Ishan Devangan, Anju Devangan, Adarsh and some other women by putting mental, physical and emotional and character defamation on her. Her minor daughter is being harassed by the accused persons for the last several days. Due to which the mental development of her daughter has stopped, she neither eats food nor is able to study, she always says that Sonia aunty has told her that she will kill her and bury her in the ground etc. Her daughter is being harassed in these ways. Hence, she lodged the FIR against the petitioner. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made in the FIR are vague and without any specific act that could attract Section 12 POCSO. Additionally, no independent witness, CCTV footage, or corroborative material is available to support the version of the complainant. The alleged incident is claimed to have occurred in a public/common area during daylight, yet no independent eye- witnesses are named. He further submits that additionally residents of the Sailino Paradise Apartment have submitted a collective written representation to the Superintendent of Police, Raipur, expressing their concern over the false implication of the petitioner and vouching for his good conduct. They have categorically mentioned that the FIR is malafide, fabricated and lodged due to personal animosity. The petitioner is a meritorious student and a disciplined, hardworking individual. He is a national-level boxing player who has represented his state and the nation and has won several medals and accolades. He is also actively involved in various other sports and extracurricular activities and has been 5 recognized on multiple occasions for his achievements. The present FIR, it is most respectfully submitted, is false, baseless, and has been lodged with malicious intent. The allegations in the FIR are vague and bereft of any specific incident that could attract the essential ingredients of Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012, which criminalizes "sexual harassment" with a definite sexual intent. The FIR neither discloses any sexually explicit language, act, or physical gesture, nor does it describe any conduct that would lead to a presumption of sexual intent. The use of broad, unsubstantiated innuendos cannot form the foundation of prosecution under such a stringent and stigmatizing provision. He further submits that the alleged incident is said to have occurred during daytime, in a common area of a gated residential society, where numerous residents are usually present. Despite this, the FIR does not name any independent witness, nor does it refer to any CCTV footage that could support the allegations. The complete absence of objective or corroborative material renders the FIR inherently unreliable and lends weight to the defense of false implication. The mother of the minor girl is a practicing advocate and has allegedly used her legal influence to get the FIR registered against the petitioner. He also submits that the petitioner is a national-level boxing champion and a diligent student with an unblemished record. If criminal proceedings under such grave allegations are allowed to continue, it will irreparably damage his future prospects, educational opportunities, and mental well-being. It is further submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the First Information Report 6 registered by the Police Station Pandri, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh against the present petitioner, may kindly be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 / State opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that once the FIR has been registered, it has to be investigated and taken to its logical end. Thus, at this stage, no interference is warranted. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that inherent power in a matter of quashment of FIR has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and when and only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in the provision itself. He would further rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, wherein the Supreme Court has laid down that when a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations made out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR. Therefore, in the light of the above 7 mentioned judgments, the instant petition is absolutely misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned State Counsel also submits that mere perusal of FIR goes to show that on 22/04/25 Akshay Sharma along with others surrounded the victim and her daughter with steel sticks in their hands and threatened her that they will beat her and her mother with these sticks and her father will not be able to do anything. Thereafter, on the same day in the evening, two boys Akshay, Ishan, Bhuju Devangan, Sonia Sharma, 6-7 women of the society and petitioner’s father also gathered and forcibly dragged her daughter out of the house by her hand and brought her to the society compound and gathered a crowd and started beating her. Sonia Sharma used obscene words in her absence and said that her minor daughter is involved in prostitution and the women who came with her shouted loudly and said that beat her daughter and her daughter is being badly beaten up in private and intimidated. Particularly Sonia Sharma and her family have been behaving indecently with her daughter for many months. In her absence, they beat her daughter and say that you do prostitution. Due to which her daughter is mentally nervous and scared. Her daughter is being harassed mentally by behaving indecently with her, her daughter is being defamed and insulted by Sonia Sharma in the whole society. As such, the FIR itself discloses cognizable offence on the part of the petitioner hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed and taken to its logical end. 8 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in this petition. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Neharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 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. (Now Section 528 of the BNSS) is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Supreme 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. (Now Section 528 of the BNSS), 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. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records and further the allegations levelled against the petitioner, who along with other boys has beaten, abused and harassed the victim and her minor daughter for the last several days threatening to kill them, due to which the mental development the daughter has stopped, F.I.R. discloses the commission of a cognizable offence against the petitioner and 9 hence, no good ground has been raised to interfere in the matter and quash the FIR at this stage as the investigation has to be concluded and taken to its logical end. 10. In view of the above means, we do not find any merit in this petition. The petition lacks merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Rahul Dewangan