Santosh Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

Santosh Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR bearing Crime No. 0153/2023 dated 23.11.2023, the charge-sheet No. 162 of 2024, the cognizance order dated 12.08.2024 and the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner (offences under Sections 354, 354(D), 452, 294, 506 and 323 IPC, P.S. Nagarda, District Sakti) should be quashed/set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution / Section 528 of the BNSS.

Court's answer

The jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or chargesheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases, and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences.

Ratio / Principle

Exception to non-interference: where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or charge-sheet may be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS.

Key takeaways

On the record here, investigation stood completed, charge-sheet filed against the petitioner, cognizance taken by the trial Court upon finding prima facie evidence of commission of offences, and trial initiated; accordingly the petition does not fall in any category wherein this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.ratio¶10
This is not a fit case to quash the FIR bearing Crime No. 153 of 2023 dated 23.11.2023, charge-sheet No. 162 of 2024 dated 09.08.2024, the order taking cognizance dated 12.08.2024, or the consequential criminal proceedings (Criminal Case No. 847 of 2024) pending before the trial Court; consequently the petition is dismissed.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), CRMP No. 804 of 2025, decided 05.03.2025 (Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice; bench incl. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge) — DISMISSED. Petition by accused (Santosh Kumar Sahu) seeking quashing of FIR bearing Crime No. 153 of 2023 dated 23.11.2023 (P.S. Nagarda, District Sakti; Sections 354, 354(D), 452, 294, 506, 323 IPC — alleged intra-family obscene acts/incident of 29.09.2023 against complainant Punam Sahu), setting aside of charge-sheet No. 162 of 2024 and quashing of cognizance order dated 12.08.2024 and consequential criminal proceedings (Criminal Case No. 847 of 2024). Held: quashing jurisdiction over complaint/FIR/chargesheet must be exercised sparingly and exceptionally, and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with investigations of cognizable offences; quashing is permissible only where allegations, even at face value, disclose no prima facie offence (Article 226 Constitution / Section 528 BNSS). Here investigation was complete, charge-sheet filed on prima facie material, cognizance taken and trial underway — the petition fell outside the quashing categories. Counsel's pleas (two-month registration delay; property-dispute motive; earlier FIR 50/2023 ss. 354, 509 IPC with cognizance 05.06.2023 in CC 639/2023) did not prevail. Parallel petition by in-laws/parents, CRMP No. 430 of 2025, had been disposed on 04.02.2025 with a direction to conclude the trial expeditiously.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
First Information Report bearing Crime No. 0153/2023 dated 23.11.2023 registered at P.S. Nagarda, District Sakti (C.G.) for offences punishable under Sections 354, 354(D), 452, 294, 506 and 323 IPC; charge-sheet No. 162 of 2024 (dated 08.08.2024 as stated by counsel, 09.08.2024 in para 11); order taking cognizance dated 12.08.2024; consequential criminal proceedings bearing Criminal Case No. 847 of 2024 — all sought to be quashed.¶2
P.S. Nagarda / Trial Court, District Sakti (C.G.) · 23.11.2023
Prior proceeding
Alleged incident of 29.09.2023 at about 5:30 a.m.: petitioner (complainant's brother-in-law) allegedly followed the victim into the garden, removed the bathroom curtain and committed obscene acts; petitioner's wife Babita Sahu allegedly snatched her mobile and slapped her; in-laws allegedly beat her (marpeet) with slippers.¶3
Prior proceeding
Delay point urged by petitioner's counsel: FIR Crime No. 153 of 2023 registered on 23.11.2023, about two months after the occurrence of 29.09.2023.¶4
Prior proceeding
During investigation offence under Section 354(D) IPC added to FIR 153/2023; learned trial Court passed cognizance order dated 12.08.2024; date 05.10.2024 fixed to argue matter before charge; no charges framed against petitioner as on the date of this order.¶3
Prior proceeding
Earlier FIR Crime No. 50 of 2023 dated 25.05.2023 for Sections 354 and 509 IPC against the petitioner; cognizance order dated 05.06.2023; in Criminal Case No. 639 of 2023 statement of victim/respondent No. 2 recorded; petitioner's counsel submitted the victim admitted lodging that FIR due to property dispute (counsel's assertion, not this Court's finding).¶5
Prior proceeding
In-laws of the victim and parents of the petitioner had also challenged the same FIR, charge-sheet and cognizance order; that petition (CRMP No. 430 of 2025) was disposed of by this Court on 04.02.2025 with a direction to conclude the trial expeditiously; counsel further asserted a correction application regarding the recorded-evidence sentence in that order.¶6
Prior proceeding
State's position: investigation done strictly in accordance with law; after completion of investigation the final report/charge-sheet filed before the trial Court; cognizance already taken and trial in progress.¶7
Prior proceeding
Consequential criminal proceedings bearing Criminal Case No. 847 of 2024 pending before the trial Court.¶11