1. Petition to quash FIR for offence under Section 318(4) BNS alleging cheating by false promise of spiritual rituals. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 23358
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Narendra Nayan Shashtri @ Narendra Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRMP No. 1923 of 2026
Important Points
The High Court cannot quash an FIR under Section 528 of the BNSS if the allegations prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, as it is prohibited from adjudicating disputed questions of fact or conducting a mini-trial at the threshold stage.
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 318(4) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Quashing of FIR - Allegations of cheating and fraudulent inducement by a spiritual practitioner to obtain money for religious rituals - Scope of inherent jurisdiction of High Court - The jurisdiction to quash an FIR is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly, only where the allegations, taken at face value, do not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence or where proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law (Paras 12, 14).
(B) The High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of allegations, appreciate evidence, or conduct a mini-trial. Disputed questions of fact, such as whether payments were voluntary donations or obtained via deception, must be decided during investigation and trial (Paras 14, 15, 16).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a spiritual practitioner, was accused of inducing a medical practitioner (the complainant) to pay approximately Rs. 25,10,000/- by claiming to possess divine powers to remove family difficulties. The complainant alleged that despite numerous rituals and payments, no results materialised, and the petitioner later threatened him. The petitioner sought to quash the FIR on grounds of unexplained delay, the complainant's high educational qualifications, and that the payments were voluntary donations.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence under Section 318(4) of the BNS. The petitioner's contentions regarding voluntary donations and delay are matters of defense involving disputed questions of fact that require a full investigation and cannot be adjudicated under inherent jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether the impugned FIR should be quashed on the grounds that the allegations were improbable and that the proceedings constituted an abuse of the process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since the allegations disclose a prima facie case of a cognizable offence, and the defense's claims are based on disputed facts, the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS cannot be used to stifle a legitimate investigation.
Result: Petition dismissed.
(B) The High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of allegations, appreciate evidence, or conduct a mini-trial. Disputed questions of fact, such as whether payments were voluntary donations or obtained via deception, must be decided during investigation and trial (Paras 14, 15, 16).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a spiritual practitioner, was accused of inducing a medical practitioner (the complainant) to pay approximately Rs. 25,10,000/- by claiming to possess divine powers to remove family difficulties. The complainant alleged that despite numerous rituals and payments, no results materialised, and the petitioner later threatened him. The petitioner sought to quash the FIR on grounds of unexplained delay, the complainant's high educational qualifications, and that the payments were voluntary donations.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence under Section 318(4) of the BNS. The petitioner's contentions regarding voluntary donations and delay are matters of defense involving disputed questions of fact that require a full investigation and cannot be adjudicated under inherent jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether the impugned FIR should be quashed on the grounds that the allegations were improbable and that the proceedings constituted an abuse of the process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since the allegations disclose a prima facie case of a cognizable offence, and the defense's claims are based on disputed facts, the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS cannot be used to stifle a legitimate investigation.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T.K. Jha, Anuroop Panda
For the Respondents: Jitendra Shrivastava
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T.K. Jha, Anuroop Panda
For the Respondents: Jitendra Shrivastava
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner denies inducement and deception; State contends FIR discloses cognizable offence requiring investigation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. Allegations, taken at face value, disclose cognizable offence; disputed facts require investigation, not quashing at threshold. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
4. High Court cannot quash FIR when allegations prima facie disclose cognizable offence; disputed facts require investigation. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
5. Petition dismissed; investigation to proceed independently in accordance with law. (Para 20 , 21 )
6. Can a High Court quash an FIR under Section 528 BNSS when the allegations prima facie disclose a cognizable offence?
No. When allegations, taken at face value, disclose a cognizable offence, the court cannot quash the FIR; investigation should proceed. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
7. Can the High Court adjudicate disputed questions of fact while exercising inherent jurisdiction to quash an FIR?
No. The court cannot embark on an enquiry into reliability of allegations or conduct a mini trial; disputed facts require investigation and trial. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
8. Is unexplained delay in lodging an FIR a ground to quash criminal proceedings at the threshold?
No. Unexplained delay is a matter requiring factual adjudication and cannot be accepted to quash proceedings at a preliminary stage. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )
For Petitioner : Mr. T.K. Jha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
28.07.2026
1. Heard Mr. T.K. Jha, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.
Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN
BRIJMOHANMORLE
MORLE Date:
2026.07.28
18:24:28
+0530 Anuroop Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.
2
Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the
State/respondent No. 1.
2. Although the present petition was listed today for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, it was taken up for final hearing and is being finally disposed of at the
admission stage itself.
3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayer:
“It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned First Information Report bearing Crime No. 0219 of 2026 dated 04.07.2026, registered at Police Station Khamhardih, Distt. Raipur (C.G.), for offence punishable under Section 318 (4) of BNS 2023, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, against
the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”
4. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that the prosecution case, as disclosed in the impugned FIR, is that respondent No. 2/complainant, a medical practitioner residing at Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, suffered the unfortunate demise of his younger brother in a road accident on 11.08.2024. It is alleged that since the exact cause of death could not be ascertained from the postmortem report, the complainant was introduced by one Dr. Devendra Verma, a resident of Shikarpur, Uttar Pradesh, to the present petitioner, who is alleged to be
3
a spiritual practitioner. He further submits that the prosecution alleges that on 06.10.2024, the complainant, accompanied by his father, visited the petitioner at Raipur, where the petitioner allegedly represented that he possessed divine and spiritual powers capable of removing family difficulties through the performance of religious rituals (Pooja). It is alleged that during the very first meeting, the complainant voluntarily paid an amount of Rs. 51,000/- in cash towards the performance of such rituals and was thereafter advised to immerse certain ritual articles in a river with an assurance that his problems would be resolved. According to the prosecution, the complainant thereafter remained in continuous contact with the petitioner and, acting upon his instructions, travelled to Raipur, Noida, Indore and several other places on more than thirty occasions for participating in various religious ceremonies. It is further alleged that the complainant incurred substantial expenditure towards travel, accommodation and other logistical arrangements for
the petitioner and his associates.
5. Learned Senior Advocate further contended that the prosecution further alleges that on 26.10.2024, the complainant again met the petitioner at Noida, where he was allegedly informed that additional religious rituals were required and was induced to make further payments. Thereafter, on 19.05.2025, the complainant was allegedly called to Noida and subsequently taken to Raipur, where the petitioner is stated to have demanded a further sum of Rs. 51,000/- and thereafter an additional amount of Rs. 21,000/- for conducting further rituals. It is further alleged that on 24.05.2025, the complainant transferred a sum of
4
Rs. 2,10,000/- through online banking to a bank account allegedly specified by the petitioner; on 26.05.2025, another sum of Rs.14,89,000/- was transferred; on 13.07.2025, a further amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was transferred; and, apart from these transactions, an additional amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was also paid through bank transfer, taking the total amount allegedly paid by the complainant to approximatel
