State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, the Hon
Case Details
1 SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.07.16 10:48:41 +0530 2025:CGHC:32478-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 392 of 2025 Subrat Bhattacharya S/o Late Shri Bireshwar Bhattacharya Aged About 64 Years R/o F-19, South City Nagar-1, Near Park, Gurugram (Gudgaon), Police Station- Sector-40, District- Gurugram (Gudgaon) (Haryana), Permanent Address- 72/1 Punjabi Bag, Police Station - Punjabi Bag, Delhi West. versus ... Petitioner State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- Patewa, District Mahasamund C.G. ---Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondent/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. Mr. S. S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. S. Baghel, learned Dy. Government Advocate, appearing for the State. 2 2. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashment of the FIR No. 142/2018 registered at Police Station Patewa, District Mahasamund, C.G. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been considered and decided by this Court vide judgment dated 11.07.2025 in WPCR No. 384 of 2025 & other connected matters, whereby the Division Bench of this Court has held as under:- “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-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. 11. In the well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 3 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. (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 4 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 Hon’ble 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 5 Maharashtra and others, reported in (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/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 Hon’ble Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 14. 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 6 conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with.” 15. From the above stated case laws it is apparent that the above stated contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner 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. 16. Further, from the perusal of impugned FIRs, it transpires that the petitioner being the Director of Pulse Agrotech Corporation Limited (PACL) allured various investors on the pretext of doubling their money, thereby collected huge amount from the general public, however, at the time of maturity, without returning the money as promised, closed the Bank and absconded. Based on the backdrop, aforesaid offence has been registered. 17. In view of the above, it cannot be said that no cognizable offences are made out against the petitioner, therefore, the present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, 7 this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the impugned FIR. Hence, no ground exists for quashing of the FIR. 18. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.” 4. In view of above, the present writ petition is dismissed in terms of the order passed by this Court in WPCR No. 384 of 2025 & Ors. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S. Bhilwar/ Jyoti