The High Court may exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings if the dispute is clearly personal or motivated by mala fide intent, and if the allegations fail to disclose a prima facie offence, thereby constituting an abuse of the process of law.

NAFR

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

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 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 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.

6. We ha