Order on Board

Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J

1. Petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for short 'BNSS') seeking quashment of charge sheet No.25/2025 filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj in connection with FIR No.3/2025 registered against the petitioner at Police Station Ramchandrapur for the offence punishable under Sections 331 (3), 296, 132, 174 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984 and Section 7 () of the Chhattisgarh Local Authorities (Electoral Offences) Act, 1964. Petitioner has also prayed for setting aside of the order dated 13.10.2025 by which learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on the final report submitted by the police.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 5.3.2025 respondent No.2-complainant submitted a written complaint before the concerned police station alleging that when the complainant was engaged in the duty of panchayat election at Booth No.115, village Ramchandrapur, 100-150 people including petitioner herein reached there, entered the polling booth centre while abusing them filthily, broke open two locks of booth centre and tried to snatch election materials and thereby they have caused obstruction in discharge of official duty by the complainant and other government officials who were on election duty. Based on aforesaid complaint, FIR bearing No.03/2025 was registered against petitioner and 100-150 others for the offence under Sections 331 (3), 296, 132, 174 of the BNS; Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984 and Section 7 (ख) of the Chhattisgarh Local Authorities (Electoral Offences) Act, 1964. In the course of investigation, police recorded statement of witnesses under Section 180 of BNSS (Section 161 CrPC) as also supplementary statement and on completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet on which the concerned Court has taken cognizance on 13.10.2025 against the petitioner for the offence as aforementioned.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner has been falsely implicated in instant crime due to political rivalry as he is elected as a Member of Janpad Panchayat Ramchandrapur in two consecutive terms. He submits that in the panchayat election of 2025 petitioner has defeated the candidate of ruling party in the State, due to which they were annoyed with the petitioner and therefore, they colluded with the Presiding Officer and got lodged a false complaint against the petitioner. He submits that FIR against the petitioner is registered with inordinate delay i.e. after 10 days from the date of alleged incident, and despite due knowledge, delay of 10 days has not been explained by the complainant. Delay of 10 days in reporting of alleged incident, particularly when police station is at a distance of just 500 meter from the place of alleged incident, clearly indicates that FIR is not a spontaneous document but it is the result of deliberations and afterthought.

4. He further submits that the order taking cognizance against the petitioner is wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles in this regard, inasmuch as the learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the material available on record and has mechanically taken cognizance on the report submitted by police without there being sufficient ground for proceeding. He further submits that while taking cognizance, learned trial Court has not applied its judicial mind and failed to consider whether there exists a prima facie case against the petitioner. Hence, the order is cryptic and non-speaking, and does not reflect any reasoning as to how the ingredients of the alleged offences are made out.

5. He next contended that the entire prosecution case, even if taken at its face value and accepted in its entiret