Chattisgarh High Court
Sangya Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:18887
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2824 of 2023
Sangya Agrawal D/o Shri Dwarika Agrawal Aged About 45 Years
(Domestic Work), R/o Mitra Vihar Colony, Link Road, Bilaspur, Police
Station Tarbahar, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.),...(Accused)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station House Tarbahar, Tahsil
And District Bilaspur (C.G.),...(Complainants)
2 - Station House Officer Police Station House SC/ST Attrocity,
Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.)
3 - Shri Girish Patle S/o Shri L.R. Patle Aged About 33 Years R/o Village
Daija, Thana Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Varma, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Gajendra Kumar Sahu & Mr. Anmol Varma, Advocates For Respondents No.1 & 2/State: Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.05.01 11:18:19 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 24.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Varma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Gajendra Kumar Sahu and Mr. Anmol Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 & 2 and Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:
"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR No.87/2017 Police Station House Tarbahar and its charge sheet in Criminal Case No.30/2023 State Vs. Sangya Agrawal and Framing of charge in the interest of Justice."
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.03.2017 the respondent no.3 along with other 11 persons filed a complaint before the Police Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur with respect to a Facebook chat/message allegedly posted by the petitioner, along with other co-accused persons including Mukesh Singh and four others, on a social media platform, wherein a general statement was made concerning reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, giving rise to an apprehension that in the absence of penal action against them, communal harmony may be disturbed and there is a likelihood of taking place of riots in the area.
3
4. On the basis of Written complaint, an FIR was registered by the police station Tarbahar Bilaspur U/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Atrocities Act, 1989) and Sections 504 & 109 of IPC and Sections 66 (kh), 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 against the petitioner, Prashant Ranjan and Aditya Mishra, on 30.03.2017. Pursuant to which the petitioner/Accused was arrested by the police on 31.10.2022 and was released from the Central Jail Bilaspur on 5.11.2022. That, the other accused persons Prashant Ranjan and Aditya Mishra were declared absconded U/s 299 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Charge sheet against the Petitioner and other 2 accused persons was filed before the Special Judge, Atrocities Bilaspur on 17.08.2023. The learned Trial Court has framed the charge against the petitioner on 12.09.2023 U/s 504 r/w section 109, 505(2) of IPC and section 3(1) (u) of Atrocities Act, 1989. Hence this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire prosecution case does not disclose any prima facie offence against the petitioner. It is submitted that the investigation under the Atrocities Act, 1989 has been conducted by an officer not competent in law, in violation of Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1995), thereby vitiating the entire proceedings. It is further submitted that the offence has been registered under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act, 1989, which stood substituted prior to the alleged incident, reflecting clear non-application of mind. Learned counsel 4 would further submit that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the charge-sheet, the FIR being of the year 2017 and the charge- sheet having been filed only in 2023, in violation of the prescribed procedure. It is also contended that even if the entire material is taken at face value, no prima facie offence is made out, as the alleged electronic material is neither properly proved nor attributable to the petitioner, and the witness statements are mechanical and identical. It is further submitted that the essential ingredients of the alleged offence, particularly the requirement of "public view", are not satisfied. Thus, continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law. It is, therefore, prayed that the FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings be quashed.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for Respondent No.3 opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and supported the impugned proceedings.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
8. It is well settled that at the stage of quashment of the FIR or charge-sheet, the Court is not required to enter into a detailed appreciation of evidence; however, if the material on record, even if taken at its face value, does not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offence, the proceedings can be interfered with. Reference may be made to the settled principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
5
9. In the present case, this Court finds that the prosecution suffers from fundamental legal infirmities. The investigation under the Atrocities Act, 1989 has not been conducted in accordance with Rule 7 (2) and (2- A) of the Rules, 1995, thereby vitiating the proceedings. Further, the offence has been registered and pursued under a provision which stood substituted prior to the alleged incident, reflecting prima facie non- application of mind. Rule 7 (2) and (2-A) of the Rules, 1995 are reproduced hereinbelow:-
7. Investigating Officer.-
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
(2) The investigating officer so appointed under sub-rule (1) shall complete the investigation on top priority, submit the report to the Superintendent of Police, who in turn shall immediately forward the report to the Director-
General of Police or Commissioner of Police of the State Government, and the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station shall file the charge-sheet in the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court within a period of sixty days (the period is inclusive of investigation and filing of charge-sheet).
(2A) The delay, if any, in investigation or filing of charge-sheet in accordance with sub-rule (2) shall be explained in writing by the investigating officer.
xxx xxx xxx
6
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
10. It is also apparent that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing of the charge-sheet. While the FIR was registered in the year 2017, the charge-sheet has been filed only in the year 2023. Such lapse of time, coupled with the prima facie doubtful application of penal provisions, raises serious concerns regarding the sustainability of the prosecution.
11. When we consider the allegation made against the petitioner we found no sufficient material which prima facie disclose that the subject slogan posted in the social media was from the same mobile phone which was being used by the petitioner. Though the mobile numbers have been disclosed in the statement of the witnesses that they received the said message in Facebook social media, but in absence of any report from the cyber experts or electronic evidence, we are of the opinion that the present is a fit case where the interference of this Court is required.
12. Without entering into a detailed appreciation of the evidentiary material, this Court finds that the material collected during investigation, even if taken at its face value, does not clearly disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner. In such circumstances, continuation of the proceedings would not be justified. Continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings, in the absence of cogent and specific allegations, would amount to abuse of the process 7 of law and would result in grave prejudice to the petitioner.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case falls within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
14. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The FIR No. 87/2017 registered at Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the charge- sheet filed in Criminal Case No. 30/2023 pending before the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Bilaspur, are hereby quashed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ashu