1 2025:CGHC:45757-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2811 of 2025 Purendra Kaushik S/o Kanti Lal Kaushik Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Mulmula, Pandaripara, P.S. Kondagaon, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry of Home, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur. 2. The Station House Officer Police Station-Kondagaon, Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 3. Smt. Champi Bhoyar W/o Mr. Umendra Bhoyar Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Mulmula, Police Station-Kondagaon, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 09.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Raza Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondents No.1 and 2/State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.09.09 17:33:51 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS and in exercise thereof admit the petition, call for the records and after hearing the parties in the matter, quashing FIR No. 140/2025 and charge-sheet (Annexure P/1) and order of cognizance dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure P/2) and order of framing charges and memo of charges dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure P/3 Colly) for the offences under Section 103(1) of the BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act and in consequences quash the entire criminal case (i.e. Special Criminal Case (SCST Act) No. 10 of 2025 between State vs. Purendra Kaushik) pending before the Special Judge Kondagaon, being abuse of process of Court and abuse of process of law and also in violation of petitioner’s fundamental rights and in peculiar factual matrix of case and in interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a citizen of India and entitled to the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. He submits that on 18.04.2025 at about 4:10 p.m., the complainant along with her brother-in-law, Hemant Bhoyar, and her friend, Gangita Kaushik, were travelling from Village Mulmula to Kondagaon on a motorcycle. A car bearing registration No. CG 27 L 2243 dashed the motorcycle, as a result of which all three persons fell and sustained injuries. Hemant Bhoyar later succumbed to his injuries. 3 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the complainant (respondent No. 3), who is also the Sarpanch of the village and politically inimical to the petitioner, lodged a complaint on 18.04.2025 alleging rash and negligent driving. However, on the next day, she filed another complaint alleging that the petitioner intentionally chased and dashed the motorcycle, came out of the car, and checked whether the victims had died. Thereafter, yet another version was given wherein she alleged that the petitioner also assaulted the deceased with some object. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the medical/postmortem report not opining the death to be homicidal, and despite contradictions in the complainant’s versions, the police, after recording the memorandum of the petitioner, filed a charge-sheet before the Special Judge (SC/ST Act). The learned trial Court, by order dated 04.07.2025, took cognizance and registered Special Criminal Case (SC/ST Act) No. 10/2025. Subsequently, charges under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were framed on 23.07.2025. 6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR, charge-sheet, order of cognizance, and order framing charges are liable to be quashed as they are based on false and improved allegations, motivated by political rivalry. Reliance is placed on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, 4 particularly Parameter No. 7, which deals with proceedings maliciously instituted to wreak vengeance on the accused. He also contended that the investigation is vitiated due to non-compliance of Rule 7(1) of the SC/ST Rules, 1989, inasmuch as the offence was not investigated by a properly appointed Deputy Superintendent of Police as mandated. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the investigation was conducted in accordance with law, a charge-sheet has been filed, and the learned trial Court has already taken cognizance and framed charges against the petitioner. It is further argued that at this stage, the High Court cannot evaluate evidence in detail. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the FIR, charge-sheet, postmortem report, order of cognizance, order framing charges, and other material placed on record. 9. The law is well settled that the power to quash an FIR, charge- sheet, or criminal proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is to be exercised sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases. The illustrative parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra) make it clear that quashing is permissible only where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose any offence, or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide. 10. In the present case, after due investigation, the police have filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner for offences under Section 103(1) of the BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, and the Special Judge 5 has taken cognizance and framed charges. The FIR, statements of witnesses, and postmortem report, prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences. 11. The inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements and the petitioner’s reliance on medical evidence are matters which can be effectively examined only during trial, upon appreciation of evidence. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 or Section 528 of the BNSS, cannot conduct a meticulous evaluation of evidence as if sitting in appeal. 12. Likewise, the plea regarding non-compliance of Rule 7 of the SC/ST Rules, 1989, is also a defence available to the petitioner before the learned trial Court. Such irregularity, if any, does not warrant quashing of the prosecution at the threshold when prima facie material exists. 13. On an overall consideration, we are of the opinion that the present case does not fall within the parameters carved out in Bhajan Lal (supra) to justify interference for quashing of FIR, charge-sheet, or criminal proceedings. 14. Accordingly, finding no merit, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan