Chattisgarh High Court
Rishab Panikar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 May, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:22561-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 3184 of 2025
Rishab Panikar S/o Shri Sanjay Panikar Aged About 27 Years R/o -
Dayalband Chowk, Bilaspur, P.S. City Kotwali, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur
(C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Home Department,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
2. Superintendent of Police Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)
3. Station House Officer P.S. - Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
4. Shailendra Bajpai S/o Shyam Bihari Bajpai Aged About 30 Years
R/o - 371, Shankar Nagar, Kewat Para, Near Bandhawa Talab,
Bilaspur, P.S. - Torwa, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)
...Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate.
For Respondent No. 4 : Ms. Rakshita Mishra, Advocate.
Digitally
signed by
BRIJMOHAN
BRIJMOHAN MORLE
MORLE Date:
2026.05.13
18:58:42
+0530
2
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
13.05.2026
1. Heard Mr. B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3 and Ms. Rakshita Mishra, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 4.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:
"1. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR No. 1352/2025 registered at P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) on dated 02.10.2025 punishable under Section 119(1), 296, 351(2) of BNS, 2023 against the petitioner.
2. Any other relief this Hon'ble High Court deems fit."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged by respondent No. 4 alleging that on 02.10.2025 at about 9:25 p.m., during the Durga Festival at Rajkishore Nagar, Kailashdham, Bilaspur, the petitioner demanded money from respondent No. 4 for consumption of liquor and, upon refusal, abused him in filthy language, showed a knife and extended threat to his life. It is submitted that on the basis of the said allegations, FIR has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 119(1), 296 and 3 351(2) of the BNS, 2023 corresponding to Sections 327, 294 and 506 of the IPC.
4. It is further submits by the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner that even if the allegations made in the FIR are accepted in their entirety, no offence under Section 119(1) of the BNS, 2023 is made out against the petitioner. It is contended that the essential ingredient of Section 119(1) of the BNS is voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt for the purpose of extorting property or valuable security or compelling a person to do any illegal act. However, in the present case, there is no allegation that the petitioner caused any hurt or grievous hurt to respondent No. 4 for extortion of property or for compelling him to commit any illegal act. Thus, registration of offence under Section 119(1) of the BNS is wholly unsustainable in law. He also submitted that the FIR has been lodged with mala fide intention only to falsely implicate the petitioner. It is argued that on the date of the alleged incident, respondent No. 4 had come to the Durga Pandal in an intoxicated condition along with certain anti-social elements and was allegedly misbehaving with girls present there. The petitioner objected to such conduct, due to which respondent No. 4 became annoyed and threatened the petitioner with false implication in criminal cases. It is submitted that complaints were also made against respondent No. 4 by persons associated with the Durga Utsav Committee regarding his conduct during the festival.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that one 4 Kajal Vaishnav, a law student, had also complained regarding the objectionable conduct of respondent No. 4 and specifically alleged that respondent No. 4 was insisting upon her to accompany him for outing and, upon refusal, started creating nuisance. The petitioner had merely intervened to prevent respondent No. 4 from indulging in such acts and, due to the said reason, respondent No. 4, out of vengeance, lodged the present false FIR. He also contended that the allegations relating to offences under Sections 296 and 351(2) of the BNS are also inherently improbable. As per the FIR itself, the alleged incident took place during Durga Festival in a crowded pandal where several persons were present and, therefore, the allegation that the petitioner openly abused and threatened respondent No. 4 with a knife appears highly doubtful and concocted. He further stated that the police authorities have mechanically registered the FIR without examining whether the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are attracted. It is argued that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as the criminal antecedents referred to by the learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 4 are concerned, learned counsel submits that most of the criminal cases have already culminated either in acquittal or have been disposed of on the basis of compromise. It is submitted that Crime No. 337/2015 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur under Sections 294, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC and Crime No. 338/2015 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur under Sections 147, 5 294, 506 and 186 of the IPC have already resulted in acquittal of the petitioner. It is further submitted that Crime No. 142/2022 registered at Police Station Torwa, Bilaspur under Sections 147, 148, 294, 506-B, 341/149 and 307/149 of the IPC and Crime No. 221/2021 registered at Police Station Sakri, Bilaspur under Sections 294, 506, 323, 336, 325, 147 and 148 of the IPC have also culminated in acquittal.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that Crime No.48/2017 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur, Crime No. 425/2022 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur, Crime No. 41/2022 registered at Police Station Torwa, Bilaspur, Crime No.905/2021 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur and Crime No. 1680/2021 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur have already been disposed of on the basis of compromise by the competent Courts. He also stated that in Crime No. 1247/2022 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, the petitioner is not even named as an accused person and, therefore, the same has wrongly been mentioned in the reply filed by the learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.4.
8. Learned counsel submits that merely because certain criminal cases were registered in the past, most of which have either culminated in acquittal or compromise, the same cannot be made a ground to sustain a patently illegal FIR when the ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out from the face of the complaint itself. He also places reliance upon State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and submits that where the allegations made in the 6 FIR do not prima facie constitute any offence or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intention, the FIR deserves to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
9. It is thus submitted that continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of Court and, therefore, the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed.
10. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the FIR has been registered on the basis of a written complaint lodged by respondent No.4 disclosing commission of cognizable offences under Sections 119(1), 296 and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023. It is submitted that at the stage of registration of FIR, the police authorities are only required to examine whether the complaint prima facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence and are not expected to conduct a detailed inquiry regarding correctness or otherwise of the allegations. He further submits that the investigation is still pending and no charge-sheet has yet been filed and, therefore, interference by this Court at a premature stage is not warranted.
11. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 submits that the present petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that respondent No. 4 had lodged a written complaint on 02.10.2025 alleging that when he had gone to Rajkishore Nagar, Kailash Dham, Sarkanda, Bilaspur for visiting the Durga Pandal, the 7 petitioner approached him at about 09:25 PM, demanded money for consumption of liquor and, upon refusal, abused him in filthy language, threatened him with a knife and extended threat to kill him.
12. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 further submits that upon perusal of the complaint, prima facie cognizable offences under Sections 119(1), 296 and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023 were found to be made out and, accordingly, FIR bearing Crime No. 1352/2025 dated 02.10.2025 was registered against the petitioner. It is contended that at the stage of registration of FIR, the police authorities are only required to examine whether the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence and not to conduct a roving inquiry regarding the correctness of allegations. She further contended that though the petitioner may have been acquitted in some of the criminal cases registered against him and certain cases may have been disposed of on the basis of compromise, however, the fact remains that the petitioner is a habitual offender and several criminal cases have been registered against him at different police stations within District Bilaspur involving offences relating to assault, intimidation, rioting and other offences affecting public peace and order. It is further submitted that externment proceedings have also been initiated against the petitioner considering his continuous involvement in criminal activities.
13. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 would submit that the investigation in the present matter is still pending and no charge-sheet has yet been filed and, therefore, the present petition seeking 8 quashment of FIR at a premature stage is not maintainable. It is argued that the pleas raised by the petitioner constitute disputed questions of fact, which can only be examined during trial and not in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. She places reliance upon CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 178 and submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an FIR is not expected to contain every minute detail of the occurrence and that it is only after completion of investigation that the exact nature of offence can be determined.
14. Reliance has also been placed upon Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that quashing of FIR at the initial stage should be an exception and Courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering where the FIR prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offence.
15. It is thus submitted that the FIR prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offences against the petitioner and, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection.
17. The undisputed factual position emerging from the FIR is that the allegation against the petitioner is that he demanded money from respondent No. 4 for consumption of liquor, abused him in filthy language and allegedly threatened him by showing a knife. Based upon 9 the said allegations, offence under Sections 119(1), 296 and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023 has been registered against the petitioner.
18. For proper appreciation of the controversy involved in the present case, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 119(1) of the BNS, 2023, which reads as under:-
"Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, for the purpose of extorting from the sufferer, or from any person interested in the sufferer, any property or valuable security, or of constraining the sufferer or any person interested in such sufferer to do anything which is illegal or which may facilitate the commission of an offence, shall be punished..."
19. A careful reading of the aforesaid provision clearly indicates that the sine qua non for attracting Section 119(1) of the BNS is voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt for the purpose of extorting property or compelling a person to commit an illegal act. Thus, causing hurt is the foundational and indispensable ingredient of the offence.
20. However, in the present case, even if the entire allegations contained in the FIR are accepted on their face value and taken to be correct in entirety, there is absolutely no allegation that the petitioner voluntarily caused any hurt or grievous hurt to respondent No. 4. The allegations are confined to demand of money, use of abusive language and alleged intimidation by showing a knife. In absence of any allegation regarding causing hurt, one of the essential ingredients required for constituting an offence under Section 119(1) of the BNS is glaringly absent.
10
21. In the considered opinion of this Court, mere allegation of demand of money accompanied by abuse or intimidation, without any allegation of voluntarily causing hurt, would not bring the act within the ambit of Section 119(1) of the BNS, 2023. Therefore, continuation of proceedings under the aforesaid provision would amount to giving an unwarranted and impermissibly expansive interpretation to the penal statute.
22. So far as the offences under Sections 296 and 351(2) of the BNS are concerned, the allegations made in the FIR appear to be omnibus and general in nature. The incident is alleged to have taken place during Durga Festival in a crowded public pandal where several persons were admittedly present, however, no independent witness has been cited to substantiate the allegations levelled against the petitioner. The material placed on record further demonstrates existence of prior animosity between the parties and allegations of previous disputes regarding the conduct of respondent No. 4 during the festival.
23. Though the respondent No. 4 as well as the State have emphasized upon the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and contended that the petitioner is a habitual offender, this Court is of the considered view that criminal antecedents alone cannot be made a ground to mechanically sustain criminal proceedings when the basic ingredients constituting the alleged offences are not borne out from the FIR itself. It is also not in dispute that in several criminal cases relied upon by respondent No. 4, the petitioner has already been acquitted, 11 while certain matters have culminated in compromise before the competent Courts.
24. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court is intended to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) has authoritatively held that where the allegations made in the FIR, even if accepted in entirety, do not prima facie constitute commission of any offence, the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent powers to quash such proceedings.
25. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No.4 in Tapan Kumar Singh (supra) and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) lay down settled principles that ordinarily the Courts should refrain from interfering at the stage of investigation and that an FIR is not expected to contain every minute detail of the occurrence. There can be no quarrel with the aforesaid proposition of law. However, the said judgments would not apply where the allegations made in the FIR itself fail to disclose the essential ingredients constituting the alleged offence.
26. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that permitting the criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioner, particularly for the offence under Section 119(1) of the BNS, despite absence of foundational ingredients of the said offence, would amount to abuse of process of law.
27. Consequently, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. 12
FIR bearing Crime No. 1352/2025 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for offences punishable under Sections 119(1), 296 and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioner are hereby quashed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan