Chattisgarh High Court
Laxminarayan Kesar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:16071
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 923 of 2026
1 - Laxminarayan Kesar S/o Sukhru Kesar Aged About 59 Years
Resident Of Awaspara, Nagoi, Police Station Sarkanda, Tahsil And
District Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
2 - Shashibhushan Pandey S/o Radheshyam Pandey Aged About 47
Years Resident of Jorapara, New Sarkanda, Police Station Sarkanda,
Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.)
Digitally signed by
... Respondents
MOHAMMED
AADIL KHAN
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
Date: 2026.04.13
11:57:42 +0530
For Petitioner : Mr. Ramsajiwan, Advocate.
For State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. S.B. Pandey, Advocate.
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
08-04-2026
1. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 filed by the
petitioner for quashing of the FIR of Crime No.752/2021 registered at
Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur for the offence under Section
2
294, 323 and 506 of the IPC and prayed for the following relief(s):-
“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly
be pleased to quash the impugned FIR dated 29-06-2021
bearing Crime No.752/2021 registered at Police Station
Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.), impugned final report
No.598/2021 dated 30-07-2021, impugned cognizance
order dated 04-08-2021, impugned charge framed against
the petitioner vide order dated 05-10-2021 and also quash
the impugned criminal proceeding bearing Criminal Case
No.2502/2021 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate
Bilaspur (C.G.), in the interest of justice.”
2. The facts of the case are that on 29-06-2021 when the
complainant/respondent No.2 was in his house the present
petitioner/accused came to his house and started abusing with filthy
language and when respondent No.2/complainant came out from his
house and tried to pacify him he assaulted the complainant by hands
and fists by which he received injuries. The incident was witnesses by
Vishvakant Nirmalkar, Manoj Kumar Sharma and others. On the report
lodged by the complainant the FIR has been registered and after
investigation charge sheet was filed before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bilaspur for the offence under Section 294, 452, 323 and
506 of the IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner
is being prosecuted for the alleged offence on false complaint made by
the complainant. There was no such incident occurred on the alleged
3
day. It is only when the petitioner had gone to the house of the
complainant, who is Advocate, for taking assistance for releasing of his
son from the jail, he raised quarrel on the issue of settlement of fees
and then the came back to his house, but only on apprehension that the
petitioner might have committed any offence with him, he lodged the
report against him. There is no ingredients of the alleged offence which
prima facie constitute offence. He would also submit that on 11-06-2022
respondent No.2/complainant committed marpeet with the petitioner by
which his one tooth was broken and on his report the FIR of Crime
No.672/2022 for the offence under Section 294, 506, 325 of the IPC has
been registered against respondent No.2. He has not committed any
offence as alleged by the complainant and the FIR as well as the charge
sheet and also the order framing charge dated 05-10-2021 may be
quashed against the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent-
State would submit that on the report made by the complainant the FIR
has been registered and after investigation charge sheet has been filed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant
would submit that for the alleged act committed by the petitioner he
lodged the report and after due investigation charge sheet was filed
against him before the learned trial Court. In the MLC report injuries
have been found on the body of the complainant and the incident was
witnesses by Vishwakant Nirmalkar and Manoj Kumar Sharma.
Therefore, there is no merits in the petition and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
4
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents annexed with the petition.
7. At this juncture it would be apposite to refer the settled legal
principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and
others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down
the categories of cases where criminal proceedings are liable to be
quashed including the cases where allegations do not prima facie
constitute any offence or inherently improbable and it has been
observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 102 and 103 that –
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of
law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to
the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not
be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae
and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised.
(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 do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
the accused.
5
(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 155(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 ever 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 criminal proceeding is a 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.
6
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of
quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very
sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare
cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the
extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary
jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.”
8. In the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another Vs. State
(NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and Another, (2019) 11 SCC
706 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 14 to 16 of its
judgment that:-
“14. First, we would like to deal with the submission of the learned Senior
Counsel for Respondent 2 that once the charge-sheet is filed, petition for
quashing of FIR is untenable. We do not see any merit in this submission,
keeping in mind the position of this Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of
Gujarat [(2011) 7 SCC 59 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23]. In Joseph Salvaraj A.
[(2011) 7 SCC 59 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23], this Court while deciding the
question whether the High Court could entertain the Section 482 petition for
quashing of FIR, when the charge-sheet was filed by the police during the
pendency of the Section 482 petition, observed : (SCC p. 63, para 16)
“16. Thus, from the general conspectus of the various sections
under which the appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted
would show that the same are not made out even prima facie from the
complainant’s FIR. Even if the charge-sheet had been filed, the learned
Single Judge [Joesph Saivaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, 2007 SCC OnLine
Guj 365] could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have
been committed by the appellant were prima facie made out from the
complainant’s FIR, charge- sheet, documents, etc. or not.”
7
15. Even otherwise it must be remembered that the provision invoked by the
accused before the High Court is Section 482 CrPC and that this Court is
hearing an appeal from an order under Section 482 CrPC. Section 482 CrPC
reads as follows:-
“482. Saving of inherent powers of the High Court .–Nothing in
this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the
High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to
any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
16. There is nothing in the words of this section which restricts the exercise of
the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage
of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High
Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC even when the
discharge application is pending with the trial court [G. Sagar Suri v. State of
U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636, para 7 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513. Umesh Kumar v. State
of A.P., (2013) 10 SCC 591, para 20 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 338 : (2014) 2 SCC
(L&S) 237] . Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated
against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has
advanced and the allegations have materialised into a charge-sheet. On the
contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands
aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge-sheet after investigation.
The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of
any court.”
9. From perusal of the documents annexed with the petition, it
transpires that the complainant has lodged a report against the
petitioner with respect to the incident that occurred on 29-06-2021 for
which the offence of Section 294, 323 and 506 of the IPC was
registered in Crime No.752/2021 and charge sheet was filed against the
8
petitioner. As per the submission made by learned counsel for the
petitioner, he also has lodged FIR No.672/2022 for the offence under
Section 294, 506, 325 of the IPC which has been registered against
respondent No.2 with respect to the incident of marpeet committed by
the complainant with him on 11-06-2022 in which his one tooth was
broken.
10. From the consideration of the material placed in the petition by the
parties concerned and also in view of the strained relation between the
petitioner and the complainant and there are report against each other,
it would deem appropriate to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR as well as the criminal proceedings
against the petitioner.
11. In view of the foregoing facts and submissions, this Court finds
that the dispute between the parties appears to be personal in nature
arising out of a disagreement over fees etc. and the same has been
given a criminal colour. There are material inconsistencies in the
prosecution story, and the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled
out, particularly in light of the admitted subsequent incident wherein a
counter FIR has been registered against the complainant. The
continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would
amount to an abuse of the process of law. It is well settled that where
the uncontroverted allegations do not disclose the commission of any
offence, or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala
fide intention, the Court may exercise its inherent powers to secure the
ends of justice.
9
12. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed.
The impugned FIR No.752/2021, Charge Sheet/Final Report
No.598/2021 dated 30-07-2021, order dated 04-08-2021 of taking
cognizance, the order framing charges dated 05-10-2021 and criminal
proceeding of Criminal Case No.2502/2021 pending before the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur (C.G.) against the petitioner are
hereby quashed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Aadil
