Ramesh Sinha, CJ.

1. Heard Mr.Gautam Khetrapal and Mr.Sheshav Shekhar Barik, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Ms.Vaishali Mahilong, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1/State.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'B.N.S.S.') with the following relief(s):-

          "1. Quash the FIR dated 22.05.2024 registered at Police Station Rakhi, District Raipur as Crime No. 126/2024 (Annexure P/1), for offences under Sections 294, 506, 323, 342, 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as being illegal, arbitrary and an abuse of process of law.

          2. Quash the Final Report/Charge-sheet No. 132/2025 dated 07.11.2025 (Annexure P/5), arising out of the aforesaid FIR for offences under Sections 294, 506, 323, 342, 392, 354 read with Section 34 IPC against the petitioners.

          3. Quash and set aside the order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (Annexure P/6), whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for offences under Sections 294, 506, 323, 342, 392, 354 read with Section 34 IPC.

          4. Quash all consequential criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 47362/2025 pending against the petitioners before the Court of learned JMFC, Raipur, to prevent abuse of process of Court and to secure the ends of justice.

          5. Pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant alleged that his son, Shubham Tiwari, was acquainted with co-accused Moharram Ali and that certain financial transactions had taken place between them. It is alleged that on 20.02.2024, the complainant and certain other persons were called near Aranyam Restaurant, Naya Raipur, where they met the accused persons and were thereafter taken to different locations. According to the prosecution, between 21.02.2024 and 23.02.2024, the complainant and others were wrongfully confined in a farmhouse, assaulted, criminally intimidated, and compelled to execute certain documents and cheques. It is further alleged that during the said period, the accused persons robbed the complainant and others of their mobile phones and cash and coerced them into executing agreements and cheques.

4. After completion of the investigation, the police filed Charge-sheet No. 132/2025 dated 07.11.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323, 342, 392, 354 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, vide order dated 15.12.2025, took cognizance of the offences against the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have preferred the present petition seeking quashment of the FIR, the charge-sheet, and the order taking cognizance.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned FIR, even if read in its entirety and accepted at its face value, does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners. It is contended that the allegations are vague, omnibus and general in nature, without attributing any specific overt act or distinct role to each of the petitioners. Therefore, no prima facie case is made out warranting their prosecution. It is further submitted that the entire dispute arises out of admitted financial and commercial transactions between the parties. The complainant's own version discloses the existence of monetary dealings, execution of written agreements and issuance of cheques. Learned counsel submitted that even prior to the registration of the FIR, statutory proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had already been initiated against the complainant on the basis of dishonoured cheques arising out of the same transactions. The complainant had also submitted replies to the statutory notices, thereby acknowledging the financial relationship between the parties. It is, therefore, argued that the present FIR is nothing but a counterblast to the proceedings initiated under the Negotiable Instruments Act and is a clear attempt to convert a purely civil and financial dispute into a criminal prosecution.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged are conspicuously absent. It is argued that there is no material to establish common intention so as to attract Section 34 of the IPC, as no specific role has been assigned to the individual petitioners. Likewise, the allegations of wrongful confinement, robbery, criminal intimidation and outraging the modesty of a woman are unsupported by any independent or contemporaneous evidence such as CCTV footage, call detail records, electronic evidence, forensic examination or independent witness statements. According to the learned counsel, the allegations are inherently improbable and inconsistent with the admitted financial dealings between the parties. It is also contended that the investigation has been conducted in a one- sided manner and the charge-sheet is founded merely on interested statements without any objective corroborative material. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Magistrate has mechanically taken cognizance without proper application of judicial mind and without recording satisfaction regarding the existence of the basic ingredients of the offences alleged.

7. Placing reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2015) 8 SCC 293 and Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1, learned counsel submitted that criminal law cannot be permitted to be used as an instrument for recovery of money or for exerting pressure in disputes arising out of commercial and financial transactions. It is argued that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and would unnecessarily subject the petitioners to harassment, despite the allegations failing to disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned FIR, the charge-sheet, and the consequential criminal proceedings, including the order taking cognizance, be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

8. On theother hand, learned State Counsel opposed the petition and submitted that the FIR, charge-sheet and the material collected during investigation clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences punishable under Sections 392, 342, 323, 354, 506, 354 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It is contended that at this stage, the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made out, and a detailed examination of evidence is impermissible in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. It is further submitted that the investigation has revealed specific allegations of wrongful confinement, assault, criminal intimidation, robbery, and coercion for execution of documents and cheques, which are supported by statements of witnesses and other material collected during investigation. Learned State Counsel submitted that the contention of the petitioners that the dispute is purely civil in nature is misconceived, as the allegations disclose serious criminal acts involving use of force, confinement and theft.

9. It is also submitted that the plea regarding prior financial transactions and proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act is a matter of defence, which cannot be a ground for quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold. Whether the alleged financial dealings existed or not, and whether the FIR is a counterblast, are disputed questions of fact to be decided during trial. Learned State Counsel further submitted that the allegations cannot be said to be vague or omnibus, as the FIR specifically narrates the role of the accused persons in calling the complainant, confining them for several days, assaulting them and forcibly obtaining signatures and cheques. The ingredients of the alleged offences are clearly made out at least at the prima facie stage.

10. It is contended that the order taking cognizance has been passed after due application of judicial mind on the charge-sheet and material on record, and does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. It is lastly submitted that the present case does not fall within the categories laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra) for quashing of criminal proceedings, and interference at this stage would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection.

12. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the 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 the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.).

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615 clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed.

14. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has authoritatively settled the scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The Apex Court has held that the power to quash criminal proceedings is required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the rarest of rare cases. It has been categorically observed that while considering a prayer for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR, nor can it appreciate the evidence or conduct a mini trial. The Court is only required to examine whether the allegations, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court further emphasized that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the threshold, that investigation into cognizable offences should ordinarily be permitted to proceed unhindered, and that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with great caution and self-restraint, save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in manifest miscarriage of justice.

15. Very recently, in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid principles and further held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS), the High Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact or evaluate the evidentiary worth of the material collected during investigation. The Court reaffirmed the test laid down in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor and observed that criminal proceedings can be quashed at the threshold only when the material relied upon by the accused is of sterling and impeccable quality, completely demolishes the prosecution case, remains incapable of being refuted by the prosecution, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. Unless all these parameters are cumulatively satisfied, the High Court ought not to interfere in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, leaving the parties to establish their respective cases before the trial Court in accordance with law.

16. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record with utmost circumspection, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

17. The FIR in question contains specific allegations regarding calling of the complainant and others, their alleged wrongful confinement, assault, criminal intimidation, robbery and coercion for execution of documents and cheques. These allegations, when read as a whole and taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged under Sections 392, 342, 323, 354, 506, 354 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The same are supported, at this stage, by statements of witnesses and other material collected during investigation, which culminated in filing of the charge-sheet.

18. The principal contention of the petitioners that the dispute arises out of prior financial transactions and therefore the FIR is malicious or a counterblast cannot be accepted at this stage. Whether there existed monetary dealings between the parties or whether any proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act were initiated is a matter of defence, which requires evidence and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. The existence of civil or financial transactions does not, by itself, negate the possibility of criminal offences where allegations of force, confinement and robbery are specifically made.

19. Similarly, the contention that there is absence of common intention or that no independent corroborative evidence has been collected, or that the allegations are omnibus in nature, are all matters which require detailed appreciation of evidence. At this stage, the Court is only required to ascertain whether a prima facie case is disclosed, and not to conduct a roving enquiry into the probative value of evidence.

20. The challenge to the order of cognizance also does not impress this Court, as it is evident that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance upon perusal of the charge-sheet and accompanying material. At this stage, it cannot be said that there is non-application of judicial mind warranting interference.

21. The legal position governing quashing of criminal proceedings is well settled, as reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra), that the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS are to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where no cognizable offence is made out or where continuation of proceedings would result in manifest miscarriage of justice. The present case does not fall within any such exceptional category.

22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the FIR, charge-sheet and the consequential proceedings do not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference.

23. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein are confined to the consideration of this petition for quashing and shall not influence the trial Court, which shall decide the case strictly on the basis of evidence adduced before it, in accordance with law.