Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 6426
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
Dilip Jha – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRMP No. 1744 of 2025 | CRMP No. 1746 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Awadh Tripathi
For the Respondent: Mr. Arvind Dubey
Quashing of FIRs is exceptional; courts must permit police investigations unless no cognizable offence is evident.
Headnote:The petitioner sought to quash an FIR registered under various sections of the BNS and the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Act, claiming political motivation behind the charges. The court emphasized that quashing FIRs should be rare unless it’s evident that no cognizable offence exists. It ultimately dismissed both petitions, allowing the investigation to proceed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prayer for quashing firs. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of the case and allegations. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. state's opposition to the petitions. (Para 6) |
| 4. court's view on investigation and fir validity. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. final ruling and dismissal of petitions. (Para 10 , 11) |
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
27.05.2025
1. In CRMP No. 1744 of 2025, the petitioner has made the following prayer:
“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the impugned FIR Crime No. 417/2025 (ANNEXURE P/1) registered at Police Station Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) u/s, 190, 196(1)(b), 197(1)(b), 197(1)(c), 299, 302 Of BNS And Section 4 Of Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Act, 1968 as well as quash the cognizance dated 01:05:2025 (ANNEXURE P/2) taken by the learned JMFC Kota in connection with crime no. 417/2025 registered at Police Station Kota District Bilaspur (C.G.), in the interest of justice.”
2. In CRMP No.1746 of 2025, the petitioners have made the following prayer:
“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the impugned FIR Crime No. 417/2025 (ANNEXURE P/1) registered at Police Station Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) u/s 190, 196(1)(b), 197(1)(b), 197(1)(c), 299, 302 Of BNS And Section 4 Of Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Act, 1968, in the interest of justice. Bilaspur.”
3. The petitioners, in these petitions, have sought relief of quashing the FIR No. 417 of 2025, registered at police station Kota, District Bilaspur for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 190, 196(1)(b), 197(1)(b), 197(1)(c), 299 and 302 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Act, 1968.
4. Admittedly, the petitioners are Assistant Professors working with Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur. A National Service Scheme (NSS) camp was organized by the University at Shivtarai, Kota, District Bilaspur from 26.3.2025 to 29.3.2025, and from 29.3.2025 to 1.4.2025. The petitioners were deputed by the University to supervise the camp. Mr. Dilip Jha, the petitioner in CRMP No. 1744 of 2025, was appointed as the Coordinator to the said Camp vide order dated 26.4.2025. The complainants namely, Astik Sahu, Adarsh Kumar Chaturvedi and Naveen Kumar, who participated in the NSS Camp lodged an FIR against the petitioners, alleging that they, as Hindu adherents, were compelled by the petitioners to offer Namaz. On such a complaint, the police registered the offences as stated above.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that a written complaint was lodged on 14.4.2025 with a delay of 14-15 days and it was politically motivated. He would contend that though 150 Hindu students participated in the camp but only three students lodged the FIR. He would further submit that the participants were not compelled by the petitioners to offer Namaz and on false accusation, the police registered the offence. He would also submit that in the camp there were four students belonging to the Muslim religion and they offered Namaz. It is further argued that the petitioner - Mr. Dilip Jha in CRMP No.1744 of 2025 and the petitioners in CRMP No.1746 of 2025 have been enlarged on bail by the learned trial Court. He would contend that the essential ingredients of Sections 190, 196(1)(b), 197(1)(b), 197(1)(c), 299 and 302 of BNS and Section
4 of the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Act, 1968 are not made out against the petitioners. He would pray to quash the FIR and cognizance taken by the learned trial Court.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. He would submit that there are serious allegations against the petitioners. He would also submit that the petitioners by using words and visible representations compelled the complainants, who belong to the Hindu religion, to offer Namaz, which is punishable according to provisions of Sections 190
