Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Self-Styled Godman Accused Of Inducing Doctor To Pay ₹25 Lakh For 'Divine Rituals'
The Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to quash an FIR against a person claiming to be a spiritual practitioner who was accused of inducing the complainant to give over ₹25 lakh by representing that he possessed divine and spiritual powers capable of resolving the complainant's family difficulties through religious rituals. The Court further observed that its inherent jurisdiction cannot...
The Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to quash an FIR against a person claiming to be a spiritual practitioner who was accused of inducing the complainant to give over ₹25 lakh by representing that he possessed divine and spiritual powers capable of resolving the complainant's family difficulties through religious rituals. The Court further observed that its inherent jurisdiction cannot be exercised to stifle a legitimate investigation merely because the accused disputes the allegations levelled against him.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal was hearing a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. According to the FIR, the complainant, a medical practitioner, approached the petitioner after the death of his younger brother.
The petitioner allegedly represented that he possessed divine and spiritual powers capable of removing family difficulties through the performance of religious rituals (Pooja). The complainant paid various amounts over several months, aggregating approximately ₹25.10 lakh, apart from incidental expenses. The petitioner contended that the complainant had voluntarily approached him seeking spiritual guidance, and any offerings, donations or monetary contributions, if made, were entirely voluntary and without any inducement, coercion or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner.
The Court reiterated that the jurisdiction to quash an FIR is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised sparingly, with great circumspection and only in exceptional cases. Referring to various precedents, the Bench observed that the High Court cannot conduct a mini trial or assess the reliability of the allegations at the stage of investigation and that criminal proceedings may be quashed only where the allegations fail to disclose any offence.
The Court held that the petitioner's contentions regarding voluntary donations, political motivation, and the delay in lodging the FIR constituted matters of defence involving disputed questions of fact. It observed that whether the complainant was dishonestly induced to make the payments, whether the representations regarding divine powers were made, and whether the ingredients of the offence under Section 318(4) of the BNS were ultimately established were all issues requiring investigation and, if necessary, appreciation of evidence during trial.
“The contention of the petitioner… are all matters which require factual adjudication. Acceptance of these submissions at this preliminary stage would necessarily require this Court to appreciate the evidentiary value of the material collected during investigation and record findings on disputed questions of fact, which is clearly beyond the permissible scope of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS,” the Court observed.
The Court held that the allegations cannot, at this stage, be said to be so absurd, inherently improbable or wholly improbable that no prudent person could ever reach a conclusion that a cognizable offence is disclosed.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the FIR.
Case Title: Narendra Nayan Shashtri @ Narendra Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. [CRMP No. 1923 of 2026]