1 2025:CGHC:38630-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2426 of 2025 1 - Amon Maris Peter S/o Shri Dan Masih Peter Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Parsabhader, P/s City Kotwali Balodabazar Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P/s City Kotwali Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 05.08.2025 SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.08.05 19:04:34 +0530 2 1. The present Cr.M.P. has been filed with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this application & quash the FIR dated 4.3.2025 in crime No. 210/2025, under section 103 (1), 3(5) of the BNS 2023, and charge-sheet dated 24.5.2025 under section 103 (1), 3(5) of the BNS 2023, at police station City Kotwali Distt. Balodabazar C.G., and memo of charge in ST No. 76/2025 by the 3rd additional session judge Distt. Balodabazar C.G., under section 103 (1), 3(5) of the BNS 2023 dated 15.7.2025 against the present applicant, in the interest of justice, any other order that may be deemed fit and just on the fact and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner is that on 04.03.2025, the complainant Harshit Mishra brother of the deceased (Gyanendra Mishra) lodged a report against unknown person at City Kotwali police station distt. Balodabazar C.G. regarding death of his brother. As per the complainant on 3.3.2025 at about 9:30PM, the deceased went outside on his scooter, the complainant made a phone call to 3 his brother (deceased), and asked his whereabout, to which deceased replied to reach near the house, when the deceased not came, the complainant again made a call, on deceased phone. The complainant again made a call about 2:50 AM late Night, some one else received the phone call of the deceased, and informed about accident of deceased, and place of incident. The complainant immediately reached the spot on his car, and asked from the persons present there including the present petitioner about the incident. They informed about the incident, then the complainant asked from his brother (deceased) about the incident, deceased informed that some unknown person hit and attack with sharp object on his right leg. During the investigation the Police came to know about co-accused Sahil Gendre, he was taken into custody and memorandum statement has been recorded, wherein it has been stated by the co-accused that he and the present petitioner have committed the offence and on the basis of memorandum statement police arrested the present petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that only on the basis of the statement of the co-accused, the petitioner 4 has been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that only on the basis of memorandum statement of the co-accused that the petitioner in connivance with the co-accused had committed the offence and fled from the place of occurrence, the petitioner has been implicated in the instant crime. On the basis of which charge sheet has been submitted as well as charges have been framed. 4. Learned counsel for the State would oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the facts and situation of the case and particularly considering the fact that the allegation of petitioner’s involvement in the crime in question is there and offence under Section 302 of IPC has been registered. After investigation the charge sheet has been submitted with sufficient material against the petitioner, whether the petitioner was present at the place of occurrence or not and whether the evidence which has been collected during the 5 course of investigation is a subject matter of trial, hence we do not find any good ground for interference at this stage. 7. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P. Stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Amardeep/Shoaib