Chandra High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:33170-DB NAFR ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2225 of 2025 Mohit Lal Yadav S/o Balsai Ram Yadav, aged about 32 years, R/o Jumaikela, Kansabel, Distt. Jashpur Chhattisgarh, at present R/o Awadh Vihar Colony, Dumar Talab, Thana - Amaanaka, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh versus ... Petitioner 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station - Mujhgahan, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - XYZ Nil ... Respondents For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Neeraj Mehta, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Shakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 16.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Neeraj Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the 2 petitioner seeking quashment of FIR No. 47/2025 dated 23.02.2025 registered at Police Station- Mujhgahan, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 75 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’) and the charge sheet under criminal proceedings initiated by the learned trial Court vide Criminal Case No. 14685 of 2025 pending before the Second Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge Senior Division, Raipur and petitioner be discharged, in the interest of justice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and respondent No.2 / complainant are the student of B.Ed. first year at Shri Rawatpura Sarkar University. The actual fact of the case is that on 22.02.2025, a fresher party was organized by senior students in Shri Rawatpura Sarkar University. On the same date, around 2:30 pm, a group of about 10-15 students were going outside for photography. During this photography some of the students have consumed liquor. As a matter of fact the complainant (R-2) has also consumed liquor and on account of this she fallen down. Then seeing this the present petitioner in order to help her, caught near arms pit and the same is evident from perusal of the photographs annexed along with this petition. Thereafter, after the photography session they all returned back and they had gone to the house of one friend. When they were seeing the photographs at time the complainant (R-2) realizes that the petitioner was trying to touch her in inappropriate manner. 3 Upon this she become annoyed and lodged a false report on the basis of misunderstanding. He further submitted that the petitioner has not committed any wrongful act against the complainant as has been stated by the complainant in her statement as when the photography was going on at that time the other students were also present together and it is quite impossible to anyone to commit such offence in the presence of so many persons. He also submitted that those students were present at the time of alleged incident, namely, Christina Lakra, Tijendra Prasad, Tarun Kumar Darro, Divya Prakash Porte, Ajay Kumar Sahu, Tirth Dev Sori, Nitesh Kumar Bada, Murli Manohar Deshius Kailach Sabu & Pramod Kumar Vikey have already submitted there respective affidavits regarding the facts that no such incident has been committed by the petitioner against the complainant. He contended that the petitioner is a student of first year of B.Ed. and if the so called false and fabricated allegation leveled against him has not been quashed, then his whole carrier would be ruined, therefore, he prays for qaushment of impugned FIR as well the entire criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent opposes this petition and submits that since after due investigation, charge-sheet has already been submitted against the petitioner and perusal of the materials on record discloses commission of cognizable offence, as such, no 4 interference is warranted at this stage. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), 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 of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 7. It has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, that the proceedings relating to cognizable offences cannot be interfered except on certain grounds enumerated by the Apex Court in the said judgment. It is evident that, none of the grounds mentioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment are attracted in the present case. In State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani & others reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, if the information given 5 clearly mentions the commission of cognizable ofence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR. Also what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence. 8. From perusal of the contents of the FIR as well as in the charge- sheet, it transpires that there is specific allegation that the petitioner has repeatedly insisted her to come with him for photography during fresher party and when she sent out to get photographed outside the college, about a kilometer away from the college, Mohit made her drink a cold drink in which alcohol was mixed, of which she was not aware. After drinking it, she was not in her senses. During that time, Mohit took advantage of her condition and touched her in an obscene manner and put his hand on her chest. At that time she was not completely unconscious, but she realized that he had done an inappropriate act with her. Later, when she saw the party pictures, seeing the state of her clothes and the way Mohit was touching her, she realized that Mohit had done wrong to her because in the photo Mohit's hand was on her chest with bad intentions. 9. On the basis of aforesaid allegation levelled against the petitioner, this Court cannot come to a conclusion that prima facie, no case is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner will have every opportunity before the learned Trial Court to rebut the allegations levelled against him. This Court cannot examine or appreciate the 6 evidences that may be led before the learned Trial Court and stalling the trial would be wholly unjustified. Further, in light of what has been said by the Supreme Court in Bhajanlal (supra) and Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra), there appears to be no good ground for quashing of the charge-sheet. 10. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra