Dismissed¶49

Girish Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jan 2026CRMP/181/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR, charge-sheet and cognizance refused; Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC inherent jurisdiction; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) 1 SCC 335 relied upon; sexual offence allegations under Sections 354(A), 385, 506, 509(B) and 201 IPC; claims of consensual relationship, WhatsApp chats and anonymous letters held to be trial matters; anticipatory bail observations prima facie only; Criminal Case No. 9360 of 2021, JMFC Raipur; charges framing date 24.04.2026; CRMP No. 181 of 2026; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; decided 16.01.2026; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

The power of inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings is to be exercised sparingly, with great caution, and only in exceptional cases; ordinarily courts do not interfere with investigation or prosecution of cognizable offences. ¶40

Girish Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR (Crime No. 201 of 2020), the Final Report/charge-sheet No. 133 of 2021, the cognizance order dated 20.09.2021 and the consequent proceedings in Criminal Case No. 9360 of 2021 should be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS.

¶22

Court's answer

¶40

Ratio / Principle

Where the allegations disclose commission of an offence and the matter requires appreciation of evidence, the High Court should refrain from exercising its inherent powers.

¶43

Key takeaways

At this stage the Court is not required to evaluate the sufficiency or reliability of the evidence collected during investigation; the petitioner's contentions pertain to the defence version and alleged inconsistencies, which can only be examined during trial.ratio¶45
The observations made by this Court while granting anticipatory bail were prima facie in nature and cannot be treated as a final determination on merits.ratio¶45
The present case does not fall within any of the exceptional categories warranting interference under Section 528 of the BNSS; the allegations are not wholly absurd or inherently improbable so as to justify quashing of the criminal proceedings at this stage.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Division Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge; order Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ) dismisses a petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of FIR Crime No. 201 of 2020 dated 31.10.2020 (registered under Sections 354(A), 385, 506, 509(B) IPC), Final Report No. 133 of 2021 dated 05.08.2021 (with Section 201 IPC added), the cognizance order dated 20.09.2021 and further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 9360 of 2021 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. Held: inherent power is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases; where allegations disclose commission of an offence and the matter requires appreciation of evidence, the High Court should refrain from interfering; the prima facie observations in the earlier anticipatory bail order (MCRCA No. 1705/2020 dated 10.03.2021) are not a final determination on merits; disputed questions of fact, including the alleged consensual relationship and the anonymous letters, are matters for trial; the case is fixed for framing of charges on 24.04.2026. Reliance placed on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) 1 SCC 335.

2026:CGHC:2665-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 181 of 2026

¶6

Girish Pandey S/o Late Sooraj Prasad Pandey Aged About 53 Years R/o Nirala Nagar, Near Ratan Lassi, Near Old Bus Stand, P.S. Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Gudhiyari, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2. X (The Details Of Complainant Have Been Provided Separately In Evelope As The Case Pertains To Sexual Offences) (Complainant)

¶11

...Respondent(s)

¶12

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶17

16.01.2026

¶18

1. Heard Mr. Shishir Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for

¶19

the State/respondent No. 1.

¶20

Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN BRIJMOHAN MORLE MORLE Date: 2026.01.19 10:45:44 +0530

¶21

¶22

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

¶23

“ (i) Quash the Final Report No. 133 of 2021 dated 05.08.2021 (Annexure P/1) filed under Section 354(A), 506, 509(B), 201 of the IPC by the police of Police Station Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.) arising out of FIR bearing Crime No. 201 of 2020 dated 31.10.2020 (part of Annexure P/1) registered under Section 354(A), 385, 506, 509(B) of the IPC, in the interest of justice.

¶24

(ii) Quash the order taking cognizance dated 20.09.2021 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 9360 of 2021, in the interest of justice.

¶25

(iii) Quash the further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 9360 of 2021 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.), in the interest of justice.

¶26

(iv) That, any other relief/order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and just, in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted in the interest of justice. ”

¶27

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a citizen of India and is entitled to protection of his fundamental, legal and constitutional rights under the Constitution of India. It is contended that the present petition has been filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) seeking quashing of the FIR, the charge-sheet/final report and all consequential proceedings, on the ground that continuation of the

¶28

¶29

criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law.

¶30

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and respondent No.2 came into casual contact during a meditation camp held in December, 2019 at Raipur. Thereafter, respondent No.2 herself initiated communication with the petitioner, which gradually developed into a consensual relationship. It is argued that the WhatsApp chats exchanged between the parties clearly demonstrate mutual consent and voluntariness. The petitioner, being a widower, intended to marry respondent No.2 and even approached her brother with bona fide intentions; however, respondent No.2 avoided commitment, which later resulted in strained relations between the parties.

¶31

5. It is further submitted that during the said period, an anonymous letter containing objectionable material was received not only by the family members of respondent No.2 but also by the petitioner himself. Without any proof or investigation, the petitioner was falsely implicated as the sender of the said letter. He also submits that the petitioner immediately approached the police authorities at Bilaspur and Raipur and lodged written complaints, which clearly demonstrate his innocence and cooperation. It is contended that these material facts were deliberately suppressed by respondent No.2 while lodging the complaint dated 31.10.2020, which led to registration of FIR No.201/2020 at Police Station Gudhiyari, Raipur.

¶32

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations contained in the FIR are vague, omnibus and contradictory

¶33

¶34

in nature and do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged, particularly in the backdrop of an admitted consensual relationship. It is contended that criminal law has been set into motion with oblique motives, purely to harass the petitioner. It is also contended that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No.1705/2020 vide order dated 10.03.2021. While granting anticipatory bail, this Court recorded a prima facie finding that the relationship between the parties appeared to be consensual and that there was no material to establish that the petitioner had authored or sent the anonymous letters. According to learned counsel, these observations go to the root of the matter and demolish the prosecution case.

¶35

7. Learned counsel further submits that the investigation was conducted in a one-sided and biased manner. The Investigating Officer ignored vital defence material, including WhatsApp chats and documents submitted by the petitioner. It is argued that the Final Report was filed mechanically and the learned trial Court took cognizance without proper application of judicial mind. Hence, continuation of the criminal proceedings would result in grave miscarriage of justice and harassment of the petitioner.

¶36

8. Per contra , learned State counsel vehemently opposes the petition and submits that the investigation was conducted strictly in accordance with law. It is argued that the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences and the investigation has resulted in collection of sufficient material against the petitioner. Upon completion of

¶37

¶38

investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial Court, which has taken cognizance and is proceeding with the matter in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the case is now fixed for framing of charges on 24.04.2026, and at this stage, interference by this Court would amount to stalling a lawful prosecution. He further submits that the scope of interference under Section 528 BNSS is extremely limited and the defences raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, which can only be adjudicated during trial. It is, therefore, prayed that the petition be dismissed.

¶39

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order and other material available on record.

¶40

10. The legal position governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing of criminal proceedings is well settled. Such power is to be exercised sparingly, with great caution, and only in exceptional cases. Ordinarily, courts do not interfere with investigation or prosecution of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not constitute any offence or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide or amount to abuse of the process of law, interference may be warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 528 of the BNSS.

¶41

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [ (1992) 1 SCC 335 ] has laid down illustrative categories where criminal proceedings may be quashed. However, it has also been consistently

¶42

¶43

held that where the allegations disclose commission of an offence and the matter requires appreciation of evidence, the High Court should refrain from exercising inherent powers.

¶44

12. In the present case, a perusal of the FIR, charge-sheet and cognizance order reveals that respondent No.2 lodged a written complaint on 31.10.2020 alleging that the petitioner made repeated phone calls demanding sexual relations and threatening her with dire consequences, causing mental harassment. During investigation, statements of the complainant and witnesses were recorded, documentary and electronic evidence was collected, and Call Detail Records along with statutory certificates were obtained. Section 201 IPC was added on the allegation of concealment of evidence. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet bearing No.133/2021 was filed against the petitioner and cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court.

¶45

13. At this stage, this Court is not required to evaluate the sufficiency or reliability of the evidence collected during investigation. The contentions raised by the petitioner primarily pertain to the defence version and alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution case, which can only be examined during trial. The observations made by this Court while granting anticipatory bail were prima facie in nature and cannot be treated as a final determination on merits.

¶46

14. This Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not fall within any of the exceptional categories warranting interference

¶47

¶48

under Section 528 of the BNSS. The allegations cannot be said to be wholly absurd or inherently improbable so as to justify quashing of the criminal proceedings at this stage.

¶49

15. Consequently, the petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed .

¶50

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶51

Brijmohan

Girish Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Bajpai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narad Suryawanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abc Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mitul Enterprises Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Niharika Lahre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vishal Mukhi Vs State of Chhattisgarh