The Chhattisgarh High Court reiterated that a petition to quash FIR, chargesheet, and pending criminal proceedings is procedurally defective if it fails to challenge the order by which cognizance has been taken by the trial court. The judgment upholds existing procedural law and clarifies drafting requirements; no substantive legal question was decided as the petition was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRMP/2764/2025 of DOMENDRA VERMA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010364942025 |
| Date of Registration | 01-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | WITHDRAWN |
| Judgment Author | Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge (Concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Division Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru |
| Precedent Value | No substantive precedent; procedural clarification only |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure (Petition under Section 528, BNSS 2023; Quashing under inherent powers) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a quashing petition is maintainable if it does not challenge the cognizance order and instead seeks to quash only the FIR, chargesheet, and committal order |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court found the relief sought in the petition was defective because the petitioner did not challenge the cognizance order dated 28.09.2024, despite seeking to quash subsequent proceedings based on that order. The committal order, dated 04.09.2024, was not annexed, but was sought to be quashed. The Court observed that the drafting of the petition was casual and incomplete. On the petitioner’s request, with no objection from the State, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh, properly drafted petition, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs. The amount is to be transmitted to a specified special school. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner challenged the FIR registered at Police Station Saja (Crime No. 192/2024) and chargesheet No. 201/2024 for offences under Sections 366, 376, 376(2)(n), 342, 506 IPC; proceedings were pending as Sessions Case No. 32/2024. Cognizance had already been taken by the trial court. |
| Citations | 2025:CGHC:44834-DB; NAFR (not for report) |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Not a binding precedent on substantive law; clarifies procedural requirements in Chhattisgarh HC |
| Persuasive For | May be cited for procedural guidance on quashing petitions in Chhattisgarh and similar contexts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court clarified that a quashing petition is defective if it does not challenge the order taking cognizance, especially when the petition seeks to quash subsequent proceedings that arise as a consequence of the cognizance order.
- The Court emphasized the importance of correctly drafting quashing petitions and annexing all relevant orders.
- Withdrawal of defective petitions may be permitted with liberty to file afresh, but may be subject to costs.
- Procedural scrutiny by court over drafting errors may lead to costs and delay.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the relief sought and found that the petition did not challenge the crucial order taking cognizance, even though that order was the legal basis for later proceedings.
- The committal order sought to be quashed was not even annexed.
- The Court characterized the drafting as casual and incomplete.
- On request by petitioner’s counsel, and with the State’s lack of objection, withdrawal was permitted with liberty to file a fresh, properly drafted petition, subject to a cost payment.
- Directions were given regarding the return of original documents upon retention of photocopies, and the disposition of the costs.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought quashing of FIR, chargesheet, and pending criminal proceedings as well as the committal order.
- On court’s indication regarding procedural defect, counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh one, properly drafted.
State
- No objection to withdrawal of the petition with liberty to file afresh.
Factual Background
The petitioner was accused in Crime No. 192/2024 registered at Police Station Saja, District Bemetara, for offences under Sections 366, 376, 376(2)(n), 342, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. A charge-sheet was filed, and the case was committed as Sessions Case No. 32/2024. The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet, and criminal proceedings, but the petition did not challenge the cognizance order, leading to its procedural rejection.
Statutory Analysis
- The petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- The Court did not interpret or expansively discuss statutory provisions; focus was on procedural compliance regarding the drafting and reliefs sought in quashing petitions.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions; both judges concurred in the order dismissing the petition as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court imposed costs for withdrawal and expressly earmarked it for a specified institution, to be deposited and receipt produced at the time of refiling.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reaffirms established procedural principles regarding quashing petitions.
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:44834-DB
- NAFR (Not Approved For Reporting)