1 2025:CGHC:14431-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1098 of 2025 1 - Kanhaiya Lal Patel S/o Ratthu Lal Patel Aged About 37 Years R/o House No. 122, Tamnar Mandal Bajarmuda, District Raigarh, Saraitola, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O./ Thana Incharge, Police Station Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Inspector General Of Police Bilaspur Near Collectorate Road, Nehru Chowk, Collectorate, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Superintendent Of Police Raigarh Office Of Superintendent Of Police Collectorate Campus, Near Nehru Nagar Chowk, Civil Line, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chitrabhan Rathiya S/o Tula Ram Rathiya Aged About 17 Years R/o Junadih, Bahirkela, Police Station- Gharghoda, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. (Complainant) 5 - Sukh Sagar Rathiya S/o Chhattar Singh Rathiya Aged About 25 Years R/o Gram Kanchanpur, Police Station- Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Jha, along with Ms. Gunjan Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 26/03/2025 1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Jha, along with Ms. Gunjan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the Respondent/State. 2. The present criminal misc. petition filed by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR of Crime No. 257/2024, registered at Police Station, Gharghoda, Raigarh for the offence under Sections 125(a) and 281 of the Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023, dated 04.09.2024. 3. The petitioner prayed the following relief in this petition: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the impugned first information report 0257/2024 registered at P.S. Gharghoda, Raigarh on dated 04.09.2024 for the offence punishable under Section 125(a) & 281 of BNS, 2023 in the, interest of justice." 4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused in the offence of Crime No. 257/2024 registered at Police Station Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G). for the offence under Section 125(a) and 281 of BNS, 2023. The said FIR was lodged by the complainant Chitrabhan Rathiya on 04.09.2024 with the allegation that on 02.09.2024 at about 06:30 p.m. when he along with his friends and Sanjay Rathiya and Khushansh Rathiya were going to answering the call of nature towards Kurkutt Aamapali near the turning a red colour tractor had dashed them by its driver by driving the said tractor rashly and negligently and fled away from the place. He along with his friends fell down on the road and received injuries on the body and one of the passer by have informed dial 112 ambulance and then they were taken to hospital. His friend Khushansh Rathiya have received grievous injuries and he was referred to Raipur Hospital. When they inquired about the 3 tractor they came to know that the tractor by which the accident occurred is of Kanhaiya Patal resident of village Bajarmuda. The incident was also known by Dileshwar Rathiya, Dhansingh Rathiya and Rajkumar Rathiya on the report made by the complaint Chitrabhan Rathiya the aforesaid FIR has been registered against the driver of the tractor of Kanhaiya Patel which is under challenge in the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the tractor of the petitioner has falsely been implicated the offence as it was not involved in any accident. The complainant has made only red colour tractor and there are number of red colour tractor but only to settle there grievance, they made complaint against the driver of the tractor and the petitioner. Merely on the basis of colour of the tractor the FIR lodged by the complainant against the petitioner. The complainant has lodged the FIR after about 02 days of the incident which itself shows their mala fide intention to settle there score. The complainant and his friends belongs to different villages to different villages and the complaint is the resident of 3 km. away from the place of incident whereas his friends were residing at the distance of 12 to 15 kms. away from the place of incident. The petitioner has also made his representation to the higher authorities of the State for proper investigation in the matter but his representation has not been considered till date, therefore, he filed the present petition. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and have submitted that the FIR has been lodged by the complainant who is injured in the accident and he disclosed that a red colour tractor of the petitioner is involved in the accident and after registration of the FIR the investigation is going on, therefore, at present it cannot be said that the tractor of the petitioner has falsely been involved in the offence in question and the matter needs investigation as to whether the accident is caused by the tractor of the petitioner are by any other vehicle, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material 4 annexed with the petition. 8. In the matter of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in AIR Online 2021 SC 192, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 23 held as under :- “23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under: (i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; (ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; (iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; (iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). (v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; (vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; (vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; (viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; (ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; 5 (x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;” 9. From perusal of the FIR it is quite vivid that the complainant is the victim of the accident and received injuries, it is not that he lodged the FIR on the basis of information received from someone else but he was one of the sufferers of the accident and when he specifically stated in the FIR that on being inquiry they came to know that a red colour tractor is belongs to the present petitioner Kanhaiya Patel resident of village Bajarmuda then it is the matter of investigation as to whether any accident from the tractor of the petitioner was occurred or the accident was from any other vehicles. It is only FIR and the investigation is going on merely denying that his vehicle was not involved in the accident or making some representations to the higher authorities is not sufficient to quash the FIR as it is in the very initial stage and nature of allegation requires investigation. 10. In view of the above, the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Neeharika (Supra), we do not find any good ground to quash the FIR. 11. In the result, the petition being devoid of merit and liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.03.28 10:33:14 +0530