2026:CGHC:1607-DB Digitally signed by ALOK ALOK SHARMA NAFR SHARMA D 20 a 2 te 6 : .01.14

10:43:16 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 66 of 2026

1 - Santosh Singh S/o Late Damodar Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o Near Shankar Talkies, Ward No. 10, Tehsil- Sohagpur, District- Shahdol (M.P.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Marwahi, District- Gaurela-Pendra-

Marwahi (C.G.)

2 - Shankar Kanwar S/o Umend Singh Aged About 46 Years R/o In Front Of Madhav Rao Govt. College Gaurela, Tehsil- Gaurela, District- Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Manglani, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

12/01/2026

1. Heard Mr. Mohit Manglani, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the Respondent/State.

2. Present is a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, for quashing of the FIR of Crime No. 105/2025, dated 30.06.2025, registered at Police Station Marwahi, District Gaurela-Pendra-

Marwahi, for the offences under Sections 296, 351(2) of BNS, 2023.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused in the offence of Crime No. 105/2025 lodged by the complainant Shankar Kanwar, with the allegation that on 29.06.2025 at about 2:00 pm, the complainant was abused and threatened in his mobile phone by some unknown accused persons who were disclosing their names as Deepmala Singh, Santosh Singh and Shilpa Singh. At the time of the alleged incident, one Lal Bahadur was also present, who heard the abuse and threats to the complainant, and then the complainant lodged the FIR. The police have registered the FIR against the holder of the alleged mobile numbers and started an investigation.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the offence of Section 296 BNS, 2023 is not attracted as the alleged incident occurred in a private phone call. The private telephonic conversation does not satisfy the ingredients of obscene words as they are not done in place within public view. It is only to give the colour of a cognizable offence, the police authorities have deliberately added the offence of Section 296 of BNS, 2023. He would also submit that Section 351 of BNS is a non-cognizable offence and the FIR cannot be registered without prior permission from the Magistrate. The registration of the FIR and investigation is an abuse of the process of law, and the same is liable to be quashed. He would rely upon the order passed by the Kerala High Court dated 18.03.2025, in the case of P.

T. Jahangeer vs. State of Kerala and Others.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the offence of Section 296 of BNS, 2023 is a cognizable offence; therefore, the FIR has been registered by the Police. There is an allegation that the complainant was abused and threatened by the accused through his mobile phone, and he also disclosed the mobile number from which he was being threatened, which certainly requires investigation. The Police is obtaining the tower location, CDR, CAF, from the concerned service provider company of the alleged mobile number, and it is found that the alleged mobile phone and mobile number were held by the petitioner, and the investigation into the offence is going on. He would further submit that the earlier the petitioner had challenged the FIR in CRMP NO. 3803/2025, which has been withdrawn by him on 17.12.2025 without reserving any liberty; therefore, the present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition.

7. From perusal of the FIR,