1

CGHC010262372026 2026:CGHC:30820-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRMP No. 1873 of 2026

Rakesh Gupta S/o Rajkumar Gupta Aged About 30 Years R/o Village-

Sanna, Thana- Sanna, Tahsil- Bagicha, District- Jashpur (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1.State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police

Station, Anusuchit Jati Kalyan (Ajak) Jashpur, District- Jashpur

(C.G.)

2.Smt. Roshni Tirkey Tahsildar, Tahsil- Sanna, District- Jashpur

(C.G.) (Compainant)

...Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Government

Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

21.07.2026

1.Heard Mr. Manoj Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also

heard Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate,

appearing for the State/respondent No. 1.

2

2.The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayers:

“I. Allow this petition under Section 528 of BNSS filed

by the petitioner.

II. Quash the impugned FIR dated 10.02.2026 bearing

Crime No. 01/2026 registered at Police Station,

Anusuchit Jati Kalyan (AJAK) Jashpur, District

Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence under Section 296, 74,

75(1),(i)(ii)(iv), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1) (n), 3(1)(/k) and 3(2-

v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (as per final

charge-sheet) against the petitioner.

III. Quash the impugned final report (charge-sheet)

dated 09.04.2026 filed by Police Station, Anusuchit

Jati Kalyan (AJAK) Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.)

before the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence under

Section 296, 74, 75(1),(i)(ii)(iv), and 351(3) of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1) (n),

3(1)(/k) and 3(2-v) of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(Annexure P/1).

IV. Quash the impugned cognizance order dated

08.05.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge,

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.).

V. Quash the entire criminal proceedings pending in

Special Criminal Case SC/ST Act No. 12 of 2026

3

before the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989,

Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.).

VI. Grant any other relief, which may be deemed fit in

given facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of

petitioner.”

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an

elected Member of the Block Development Committee (BDC), Sanna,

District Jashpur (C.G.), representing the concerned territorial

constituency, and is also a practicing Advocate. Being a public

representative, it was his duty to safeguard public interest and to seek

information regarding governmental actions affecting the residents of

his constituency. He further submits that on 28.10.2025, the petitioner

received telephonic information from Shri Ashok Gupta and other

villagers that the residential house of Shri Ashok Gupta was being

demolished by respondent No.2, Smt. Roshni Tirkey, Tahsildar, Sanna,

by using a bulldozer without issuing any prior notice and without

following the due process of law. Upon receiving such information, the

petitioner immediately proceeded to the spot in discharge of his public

duties to ascertain the factual position and to seek information regarding

the legality of the demolition proceedings.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the

petitioner sought details regarding the action being undertaken,

respondent No.2 neither furnished any information nor explained the

legal basis of the demolition. Instead, she allegedly behaved in an

arbitrary, insulting and unbecoming manner towards the petitioner. It is

4

further submitted that respondent No.2 threatened the petitioner that if

he continued to question her official actions and raise public grievances,

she would falsely implicate him in a criminal case under the Scheduled

Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, send

him to jail and ruin his political career. She also described the petitioner

as an outsider and attempted to portray him as anti-tribal, despite the

petitioner's clarification that he had visited the spot solely in his capacity

as an elected public representative to seek information regarding official

action.

5.It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that on the very same day, Shri Ashok Gupta, whose residential

construction was being demolished, along with other villagers present at

the spot, submitted a written complaint before the Station House Officer,

Police Station Sanna, against the arbitrary and illegal acts of

respondent No.2. The petitioner also submitted a written complaint

before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bagicha, and thereafter

submitted a detailed representation dated 31.10.2025 before the

Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State of Chhattisgarh seeking appropriate

action against respondent No.2. He also contended that after submitting

the aforesaid representation, while the petitioner was returning to his

village, his vehicle was intercepted by Rishu Keshri, Ravishankar

Bhagat and their associates, who allegedly assaulted him, threatened to

kill him for lodging complaints against respondent No.2, and caused

injuries including a fracture to one of his fingers. Although the petitioner

immediately lodged a written complaint at Police Station Sanna and

5

underwent Medico-Legal Examination, no FIR was registered on the

basis of his complaint. It is submitted that significantly, Rishu Keshri and

Ravishankar Bhagat have subsequently been cited as prosecution

witnesses in the present criminal case.

6.Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that respondent

No.2 had been facing several complaints from villagers and public

representatives alleging abuse of official position and other illegalities in

the discharge of her official duties. According to the petitioner, several

representations had already been submitted before the competent

authorities and the villagers had also proposed to launch a public

agitation against the arbitrary conduct of respondent No.2. He also

submitted that the petitioner is presently protected by an interim order

dated 22.04.2206 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.)

No. 6403 of 2026, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed

that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in connection

with Crime No. 01/2026, and the petitioner has duly complied with the

conditions imposed therein. He further contended that after completion

of the investigation, the Police, Police Station AJAK, Jashpur, filed the

charge-sheet dated 09.04.2026 and the supplementary charge-sheet

dated 08.05.2026 before the learned Special Judge under the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

Jashpur, whereafter cognizance was taken.

7.Assailing the impugned proceedings, learned counsel submits that

the FIR, the charge-sheet, the supplementary charge-sheet and the

6

order taking cognizance are wholly illegal, arbitrary and liable to be

quashed. It is contended that the impugned FIR is nothing but a

malicious counterblast to the repeated complaints and representations

submitted by the petitioner and other villagers against respondent No.2

much prior to the registration of the FIR. According to the learned

counsel for the petitioner, the sequence of events clearly establishes

mala fide intention and abuse of the criminal process.

8.It is further submitted by learned counsel, appearing for the

petitioner that the alleged incident is stated to have occurred on

28.10.2025, whereas the FIR came to be registered only on 10.02.2026

after considerable delay, for which no satisfactory explanation has been

offered. Such unexplained delay, according to learned counsel,

seriously undermines the credibility of the prosecution case and

indicates that the FIR is an afterthought lodged after deliberation and

consultation. He also submits that the petitioner, being an elected

Member of the Janpad Panchayat and a practicing Advocate, was

merely discharging his public duties by questioning illegal official

actions. The prosecution has, therefore, been initiated only with a view

to silence and intimidate him from performing his public responsibilities.

It is also submitted that the entire incident dated 28.10.2025 was

videographed and that the video recording clearly depicts the true

sequence of events, which completely belies the allegations levelled by

respondent No.2.

9.Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that although

7

the petitioner had lodged complaints regarding the threats, assault and

other illegal acts committed against him, no FIR was registered by the

police on his complaint, whereas the complaint made by respondent

No.2 was acted upon with undue promptitude, thereby demonstrating a

biased, discriminatory and unfair investigation. He submitted that the

prosecution case is founded upon interested and partisan witnesses,

including persons against whom the petitioner had earlier lodged

complaints and who had allegedly assaulted him. Their testimonies,

according to the petitioner, are inherently unreliable and require strict

scrutiny.

10.Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that even if the

allegations contained in the FIR and the charge-sheet are accepted in

their entirety, they do not disclose the essential ingredients of the

offences alleged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989.

11.It is lastly submitted that the present case squarely falls within the

principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana

v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, inasmuch as the

criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides and have

been maliciously instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking

vengeance upon the petitioner and settling personal as well as official

scores. It is further contended that respondent No.2 had openly

threatened the petitioner, much prior to the registration of the FIR, that

8

she would falsely implicate him under the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act if he continued to

question her official actions. The subsequent registration of the

impugned FIR, according to learned counsel, lends substantial support

to the petitioner's plea of mala fide exercise of power and abuse of the

criminal justice process. It is also submitted that Respondent No.2,

being a public servant, has initiated the criminal proceedings arising out

of the discharge of her official functions only to shield her arbitrary

administrative actions and to silence an elected public representative

who questioned the legality of such actions.

12.Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the

petition and submitted that the impugned FIR, charge-sheet,

supplementary charge-sheet and the order taking cognizance do not

suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court in

exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’). It is contended that

the FIR discloses the commission of cognizable offences and, upon

completion of investigation, sufficient material has been collected

against the petitioner.

13.It is further submitted by the learned State counsel that the pleas

raised by the petitioner relate to disputed questions of fact, which can

only be adjudicated upon after appreciation of oral and documentary

evidence during trial. It is further submitted that the allegations of mala

fides, false implication and political vendetta constitute matters of

9

defence, which cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 528

of the BNSS. It is, therefore, prayed that the petition deserves to be

dismissed.

14.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

15.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 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS).

16.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters 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 Supreme 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

10

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.

17.In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra,

2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

authoritatively settled the scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High

Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now

Section 528 of the BNSS). The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the

power to quash criminal proceedings is required to be exercised

sparingly, with circumspection and only in the rarest of rare cases. It has

been categorically observed that while considering a prayer for

quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, the High Court cannot embark

upon an enquiry into the reliability, genuineness or otherwise of the

allegations contained in the FIR, nor can it appreciate the evidence or

conduct a mini trial. The Court is only required to examine whether the

allegations, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a

cognizable offence. The Supreme Court further emphasized that

criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the threshold, that

investigation into cognizable offences should ordinarily be permitted to

proceed unhindered, and that the extraordinary jurisdiction under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with great caution and self-

restraint, save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result

in manifest miscarriage of justice.

11

18.Very recently, in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar

Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on

02.09.2025), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid

principles and further held that while exercising jurisdiction under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS), the High Court

cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact or evaluate the evidentiary

worth of the material collected during investigation. The Court reaffirmed

the test laid down in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor and observed

that criminal proceedings can be quashed at the threshold only when

the material relied upon by the accused is of sterling and impeccable

quality, completely demolishes the prosecution case, remains incapable

of being refuted by the prosecution, and continuation of the criminal

proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. Unless

all these parameters are cumulatively satisfied, the High Court ought

not to interfere in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, leaving the parties

to establish their respective cases before the trial Court in accordance

with law.

19.In the present case, a perusal of the FIR, the charge-sheet, the

supplementary charge-sheet and the material collected during

investigation reveals that the complainant/victim, who was posted as

Tahsildar, Sanna, District Jashpur, has levelled specific allegations

against the petitioner. According to the prosecution, while she was

discharging her official duties in connection with an enquiry relating to

an alleged unauthorized construction, the petitioner abused and

intentionally insulted her by uttering caste-related remarks in public

12

view. It is further alleged that on 28.01.2026, when the victim was

returning from the Tahsil Office to her residence, the petitioner

intercepted her vehicle, forcibly dragged her out, criminally intimidated

her, used obscene and caste-related abusive language, outraged her

modesty by touching her person without her consent and made

unwelcome sexually coloured remarks. On the basis of the complaint

lodged by the victim, Crime No.01/2026 came to be registered for the

offences alleged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989.

20.During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer

recorded the statements of the witnesses acquainted with the facts of

the case, collected the relevant material and, being satisfied that a

prima facie case was made out against the petitioner, submitted the

charge-sheet dated 09.04.2026 before the Court of the learned Special

Judge under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Subsequently, after completion of the

remaining investigation and the appearance of the petitioner pursuant to

the interim protection granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a

supplementary charge-sheet dated 08.05.2026 was also filed before the

competent Court. Thus, the investigation culminated in submission of

the final report after collection of material which, according to the

Investigating Agency, disclosed the commission of cognizable offences

by the petitioner.

13

21.The principal grounds urged by the petitioner are that the criminal

proceedings are a counterblast to the complaints made by him against

respondent No.2; that respondent No.2 had earlier threatened to falsely

implicate him under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act; that the FIR has been maliciously

instituted; that there has been delay in registration of the FIR; that the

petitioner was himself assaulted by certain persons who have

subsequently been cited as prosecution witnesses; that the

investigation is biased; and that the incident was videographed, which

according to the petitioner falsifies the prosecution story. In the

considered opinion of this Court, all these submissions constitute the

defence of the petitioner and involve seriously disputed questions of

fact. Whether the allegations made by the petitioner are correct or

whether the prosecution version is truthful are matters which

necessarily require appreciation of evidence and cannot be adjudicated

in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS.

22.It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction for quashing

criminal proceedings, this Court is not expected to conduct a roving

enquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations or to

examine the probative value of the evidence collected during

investigation. The defence sought to be projected by the petitioner,

including the plea that the proceedings are actuated by mala fides or

are a consequence of previous complaints made against respondent

No.2, cannot by themselves furnish a ground for quashing the criminal

proceedings when the FIR and the material collected during

14

investigation disclose the commission of cognizable offences. Even

assuming that the petitioner had earlier submitted complaints against

respondent No.2 or that civil or political disputes existed between the

parties, the same cannot ipso facto render the prosecution non-

maintainable, particularly when the allegations made by the victim are

specific and have been found by the Investigating Agency to warrant

prosecution.

23.So far as the contention regarding delay in lodging the FIR is

concerned, the same also cannot be examined in isolation at this stage.

Whether such delay stands satisfactorily explained and what effect, if

any, it has on the prosecution case are matters to be considered by the

learned trial Court after the parties adduce evidence. Likewise, the plea

that the incident was videographed and that such recording disproves

the prosecution version involves appreciation of evidence, which is

wholly impermissible while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of

the BNSS. The evidentiary value, admissibility and authenticity of such

material can only be examined during the course of trial.

24.This Court also finds that the allegations made in the FIR cannot

be said to be so absurd, inherently improbable or patently frivolous that

no prudent person could reach a conclusion that a prima facie case is

made out against the petitioner. On the contrary, the FIR contains

specific allegations regarding intentional insult by using caste-related

expressions, criminal intimidation, use of obscene language and acts

amounting to outraging the modesty of the victim, all of which have

15

been duly investigated by the Investigating Agency. Whether these

allegations are ultimately proved or not is a matter exclusively within the

domain of the learned trial Court.

25.The reliance placed by the petitioner upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) is of no assistance in the

facts of the present case. The present matter does not fall within any of

the exceptional categories enumerated therein warranting exercise of

the extraordinary jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings. The

allegations contained in the FIR, read along with the statements

recorded during investigation and the material collected by the

Investigating Agency, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable

offences. At this stage, this Court cannot record a finding that the

prosecution has been maliciously instituted or that the allegations are

inherently improbable.

26.Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Neeharika (supra) and Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra), this

Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not

warrant interference in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under

Section 528 of the BNSS. The pleas raised by the petitioner are

essentially matters of defence, which can be effectively urged before

the learned trial Court during the course of trial. At this stage, the

material placed on record prima facie discloses the commission of

cognizable offences and, therefore, continuation of the criminal

proceedings cannot be said to amount to abuse of the process of law.

16

27.Consequently, finding no merit in the present petition, the same

deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. It is, however, made clear that

the observations made herein are confined only to the adjudication of

the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, and shall not be

construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The learned trial

Court shall proceed with the trial independently and decide the matter

strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made in

this order.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)

Judge Chief Justice

Brijmohan