1 2025:CGHC:42896-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2655 of 2025 Mohit Patel S/o Neelamber Patel Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Birbira, Police Station- Tumgaon, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Tumgaon, District Mahasamund C.G. 2 - Govind Patel S/o Ugrasen Patel Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Malidih, Police Station- Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund C.G. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 25.08 .2025 1. Heard Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No.1. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.08.26 10:40:39 +0530 2 2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “A. quash the FIR, of crime no. 207/2024, dated 19.12.2024 lodged at Police Station Tumgaon, District Mahasamund (C.G.), u/s 103(1), 3(5), 61 (2), & 238 of BNS Act 2023; & charge sheet no. 37/25, dated 15.03.2025 filed under section u/s 103(1), 3(5), 61 (2), & 238 of BNS Act 2023 (Annex. P-3) at Police Station - Tumgaon, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) in so far as relates to the petitioner herein; and B. to quash the impugned order of taking cognizance of offence dated 15.04.2025 (part of Annex. P-1) passed by the learned Session's Judge Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) in S.T. No.36/2025 against the petitioner: and C. to quash order of framing of charge dated 08.05.2025 (Annex. P-2) whereby charges u/s 103(1) /3(5), 61 (2), & 238 of BNS Act 2023 framed by the learned 1st Additional Session's Judge Mahasamund, District 3 Mahasamund (C.G.) in S. T. No. 36/2025 (Anne. P-3), against the petitioner herein in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that the respondent No. 2/complainant is the nephew of the deceased Heeradhar Patel, whereas the deceased was the uncle ("मौसा") of the present petitioner. On 18.12.2024, he lodged a missing report stating that his uncle had gone with the petitioner on 17.12.2024 towards Dongi Puliya, Village Birbira, on his motorcycle and since then had not returned. During investigation on 19.12.2024, a male dead body was found in Birbira jungle, which was identified by the complainant as that of his uncle Heeradhar Patel. Thereafter, Dehati Merg intimation was registered, followed by Dehati Nalishi, and on the same day an FIR under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 238, and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’) was registered against the petitioner and co-accused persons. 4. During investigation, the memorandum of the petitioner and other accused persons was recorded, pursuant to which one mobile phone and clothes of the petitioner were seized. FSL report revealed bloodstains on the petitioner’s shirt, but the blood group could not be determined as it was disintegrated. Spot map, postmortem, and witness statements were also collected. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and two others under the aforesaid sections. The 4 learned Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, took cognizance of the offences on 15.04.2025, and the case was committed to the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, where charges under Sections 103(1)/3(5), 61(2), and 238 of BNS Act, 2023 were framed against the petitioner and co-accused vide order dated 08.05.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in jail in the present case and as per the admitted case of the prosecution itself, no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioner, and therefore the entire charge sheet, the order of framing of charge, and all consequential proceedings are wholly illegal and erroneous. It is urged that continuation of criminal proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of process of law and would inevitably result in miscarriage of justice, hence the same deserve to be quashed. Counsel further contends that from a bare perusal of the charge sheet papers, it becomes evident that the present case is not based on any direct evidence and, therefore, the trial court has committed a grave error in framing charge against the petitioner. It is argued that there is no circumstantial evidence against the petitioner as the prosecution has failed to establish that the deceased was last seen in his company. The only allegation is that the petitioner had made a phone call to the deceased when he was in the company of respondent No. 2, but beyond this there is no material to show involvement of the petitioner. Even the complainant himself has admitted in his 5 statement that he is unaware of what transpired between the deceased and the petitioner during the alleged phone call. Reliance placed upon the CDR report is also misconceived, as the same does not establish that the petitioner had met the deceased on the fateful day. Learned counsel submits that the recovery of the dead body was not made at the instance of the petitioner. In fact, in the missing report itself, respondent No. 2 had informed the police that the deceased had gone towards Birbira Jungle, and the police subsequently recovered the body on its own search at 11:40 AM on 19.12.2024. However, the prosecution, in order to falsely implicate the petitioner, has portrayed that the recovery was made on the basis of the memorandum recorded later in the afternoon at about 03:50 PM and 03:55 PM. This clearly renders the prosecution version unreliable. Even otherwise, prosecution witnesses themselves have admitted that the police already knew about the presence of the dead body in Birbira Jungle, which makes the alleged recovery on memorandum meaningless. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated only because the deceased harboured suspicion that he was having an affair with his daughter. However, no such evidence has been brought on record and, on the contrary, the daughter of the deceased has categorically denied the same in her statement. Thus, no motive can be attributed to the petitioner. It is also pointed out that no incriminating article was ever seized from the possession of the 6 petitioner. The seizure memo records blood-like stains on the pant of the petitioner, whereas the FSL report mentions stains on the shirt, creating a clear inconsistency and making the prosecution case highly doubtful. Even otherwise, the FSL report is inconclusive as it does not confirm whether the stains were of human or animal origin, nor has the blood group been ascertained. Hence, such inconclusive forensic material cannot be the sole basis for subjecting the petitioner to a full-fledged trial. Even assuming, without admitting, that blood was found on the petitioner’s shirt, the same cannot complete the chain of circumstantial evidence so as to fasten criminal liability. Thus, in absence of any direct evidence, last seen circumstance, motive, or conclusive forensic support, the prosecution has utterly failed to make out any prima facie case. Continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would cause serious prejudice, undue hardship, and would amount to gross abuse of the process of law. As such, the charge sheet, the order of cognizance, and the framing of charge against the petitioner be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the investigation was conducted strictly in accordance with law and after due collection of material evidence. It is submitted that the allegation in the complaint is that Devendra Joshi and co- accused Swapnil Dubey induced the complainant and others on the pretext of providing government jobs and received huge 7 amounts of money. During investigation, it was revealed that part of the cheated amount, i.e., Rs. 3,00,000/-, was transferred into the bank account of the present petitioner. The receipt of tainted money in the account of the petitioner creates a prima facie link connecting her with the chain of circumstances of the offence. Whether the petitioner had knowledge or not is a matter of trial and cannot be decided at this stage under Section 528 BNSS. It is further submitted that once the investigation discloses material showing flow of the cheated amount into the petitioner’s account, the police has rightly arrayed her as an accused and the learned JMFC has correctly taken cognizance of the offences. The veracity of allegations and the defence of the petitioner can only be adjudicated during trial, not at the stage of quashing. Reliance is placed on the settled principle that the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C./582 BNSS is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. Where the allegations in the FIR and charge-sheet disclose the commission of cognizable offences, the proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed. As such, the instant petition be dismissed being devoid of merit. 7. Learned State counsel, opposing the submissions of the petitioner, submits that the charge sheet and other materials collected during investigation clearly disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner. It is contended that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is only required to see whether there exists a 8 strong suspicion connecting the accused with the crime, and not to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence. Reliance is placed on the settled principle of law laid down in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39 and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, to contend that where the material raises grave suspicion, charges must be framed and trial must proceed. It is further submitted that the seizure of articles, memorandum of the accused persons, FSL report, call details, and witness statements together create sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioner. Whether such evidence is sufficient for conviction is a matter to be examined during trial, and not at this preliminary stage. The scope of interference under inherent jurisdiction is limited, and unless the case falls under the exceptional categories carved out in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the proceedings cannot be quashed. As the present case does not fall within those parameters, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition is devoid of merit. The entire case of the petitioner rests upon a detailed appreciation of evidence which, at this stage of framing of charge, is neither permissible nor warranted. It is settled law that at the stage of cognizance and framing of charge, the Court is only required to see whether there exists a strong suspicion against the accused so as to proceed to trial, and not to 9 meticulously evaluate the probative value of the material collected by the prosecution. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Singh (supra) has held that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but only to see whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused. 10. Similarly, in Amit Kapoor (supra), the Apex Court has reiterated that where the material placed on record discloses grave suspicion, charges must be framed and the trial must proceed. It is further held that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, only when the allegations in the FIR or the charge-sheet do not disclose any offence at all. 11. Further, in Bhajan Lal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the categories of cases where quashing may be justified. The present case, on the basis of the material placed by the prosecution, does not fall within any of the said categories. The presence of memorandum statements, seizure of articles, FSL report, call details, and the chain of circumstances, whether ultimately sufficient for conviction or not, are matters to be tested during the course of trial and cannot be a ground to quash proceedings at the threshold. 12. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the order of taking cognizance or the 10 subsequent order framing of charge against the petitioner, who is stated to be in jail in the present case and the bail application of the present petitioner has been rejected by this Court. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed as being without merit. It is, however, observed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all permissible legal and factual defences during the course of trial, which shall be considered by the learned trial court strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu