2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10467
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
BRIJESH KUMAR YADAV – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPCR/394/2024
2025:CGHC:48270-DB MANPREET KAUR NAFR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR D 10 a : t 5 e 4 : : 2 3 0 8 2 + 5. 0 0 5 9 3 .2 0 3 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 394 of 2024 Brijesh Kumar Yadav S/o Late Shri Rampher Yadav Aged About 42 Years R/o Tulsi Nagar, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Line Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Pravin Ratnaparkhi, S/o Prabhakar Ratnaparkhi, Aged About 43 Years R/o Lig 95, Pandit Ravi Shukla Nagar, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
WPCR No. 412 of 2024 Umesh Yadav S/o Shri Kamlesh Yadav, Aged About 31 Years R/o Tulsi Nagar, Korba, District-Korba, Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Station House Officer, Police Station- Civil Line Korba, District-Korba, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Pravin Ratnaparkhi S/o Prabhakar Ratnaparkhi, Aged About 43 Years R/o Lig 95, Pandit Ravi Shukla Nagar, District-Korba, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. and Mr. Ashutosh Biswas, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
19.09.2025
1. Heard Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned counsel for respondent / State and Mr. Ashutosh Biswas, learned counsel for complainant.
2. The petitioner has filed this WPCR No. 394 / 2024 with the following prayer:
“10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to registration of offence against the petitioner for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
10.2 The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to quash the FIR (Annexure P/1) bearing Crime No. 0527/2024 registered against the petitioner at Police Station Civil Line, Korba on 03.09.2024 for offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 310(2), 333, and 351(2) of BNS, 2023. 10.3 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.
10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”
3. The petitioner has filed this WPCR No. 412 / 2024 with the following prayer:
“10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to registration of offence against the petitioner for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
10.2 The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to quash the FIR (Annexure P/1) bearing Crime No. 0527/2024 registered against the petitioner at Police Station Civil Line, Korba on 03.09.2024 for offence punishable under Sections
115(2), 296, 310(2), 333, and 351(2) of BNS, 2023.
10.3 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.
10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”
4. Brief facts of WPCR No. 394 of 2024 are that the petitioner is a partner in the cable network business originally operating under the name “M/s Vande Mataram Cable Network,” which was later allegedly rebranded as “Vande Mataram CCN Shark Network.” Over the years, multiple partnership deeds were executed documenting the admission, retirement, and shareholding of various partners, including the petitioner. Disputes arose between the partners regarding control and management of the firm. On 02.09.2024, the petitioner visited the office of the partnership firm to address customer complaints regarding non-transmission of channels and to resolve ongoing disputes between the partners. The FIR in question (FIR No. 0527/2024) alleges that the petitioner, along with others, forcibly entered the office, physically assaulted Respondent No. 2, and looted several items. The petitioner denies these allegations, asserting that on the date of the incident, he was himself assaulted by respondent No. 2