The power to quash an FIR or charge-sheet under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. If the allegations prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, the court will not interfere with the investigation or trial based on the reliability of evidence.

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate, appearing for the Respondent/State.

2. Present is a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, filed by the petitioner challenging the registration of FIR, charge-sheet, taking cognizance of the offence by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambikapur and proceedings of the Criminal case No. 10095/2025 and prayed the following relief in the petition :-

“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quash the registration of FIR No. 0.659 of 2024 lodged in P.S. Ambikapur, Dist- Sarguja (CG) dated 27.09.2024, along with Charge-sheet No. 661/2025 dated 01.12.2025, taking cognizance of alleged offences under Section 318 (4), 338, 336 (3), 340 (2), 61 (2), 238, 111, 341 (1) & 342 (2) of BNS, 2023 dated 06.12.2025 in Criminal Case No. 10095/2025 pending in the Court of learned JMFC, Ambikapur, Dist- Sarguja (CG), in the interest of justice.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused in the Crime No. 659 of 2024 registered at P.S. Ambikapur, Dist- Sarguja. Along with the petitioner/ accused, three other accused persons are their against whom charge-sheet has been filed. The allegation against the petitioner and accused persons are that the Tahsildar, Ambikapur lodged a report to the Police that with respect to revenue case before the tahsildar, an order dated 20.10.2021 purportedly passed by Board of Revenue in Case No. RN/16/R/A-6/275/2021 (Meena Gupta Vs. Manjusha Deve and others) which was found suspicious and an enquiry was conducted by the Collector, Sarguja. A report was obtained from Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in which the said order was reported to be forged. The said order pertains to mutation in favour of Meena Gupta with respect to land Khasra No. 256/3 Area 0.048 Hec and khasra No. 273, Area 0.021 Hec. situated at Village- Mayapur, Tahsil- Ambikapur, Dist- Sarguja. The allegation against the present petitioner is that, he along with other co-accused Mohd. Dastgir Ansari, Mohd. Murtaja Ali, have got prepared the forged order of Board of Revenue, Bilaspur and produced it before the Tahsildar, Ambikapur. After considering sufficient prima facie material available against the accused persons, charge- sheet has been filed against them which is under challenge in the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no material available against the petitioner that he in any manner with the connivance of other accused persons prepared the forged order or involved in the offence. Only on suspicion the present petitioner has been made accused on an oral statement of the witnesses. Nothing incriminating material has been seized from the possession of the present petitioner. While making his submission, he is referred to the document annexed at Page No. 86 of the petition which is the memo sent by the Investigating Officer, P.S. Kotwali Ambikapur to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ambikapur dated 04.12.2025 and submitted that the Investigating Officer himself considered about discrepancies in the evidence and involvement of the present petitioner and has reported to the Senior Superintend of Police for calling of the sufficient documents from the Revenue Departments as well as the relevant documents of the concerned Board of Revenue with respect to issuance of certified copy of the said order. He vehemently submitted that when the Police authorities themselves have not found any sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner, he cannot be put to face trial of the criminal case, therefore, the petition may be allowed and the FIR as well as charge-sheet and proceeding of the criminal case against the petitioner may be quashed.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by