1 2025:CGHC:48450-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2944 of 2025 Devesh Patel S/o Shridhar Patel Aged About 31 Years R/o Village - Ward No. 09 Lendhra Road Baramkela Police Station - Baramkela, District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Incharge Of Police Station Baramkela, District - Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) 2 - Surendra Nayak S/o Lillambar Nayak Aged About 34 Years R/o Gram Jhabard Baramkela, District - Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) (Respondent/ Complainant) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 22.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rishabh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.09.23 10:54:37 +0530 2 heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.1 / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “I. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed by the petitioner Davesh Patel. II. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 397/2022 dated 15.12.2022 registered at Police Station Baramkela, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (Chhattisgarh), for the offences punishable under Section 452, 307, 34, 201 & 147 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners herein. III. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash entire charge sheet/final report bearing No. 75/2025 filed on dated 01.08.2025 before Judicial Magistrate First class, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (State of Chhattisgarh v. Davesh Patel & Others) for the offences punishable under section 452, 307, 34, 201 & 147 of Indian Penal Code. IV. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order of taking cognizance dated 08.08.2025 (Annexure P/2), passed in Criminal Case No. 2229/2025 in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh v. Davesh Patel & Others, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First class, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh has taken cognizance of the impugned 3 Chargesheet and registered the impugned criminal proceeding as Criminal Case no. 2229/2025 against the Petitioners namely Aman Agrawal & Rahul Agrawal. V. And to kindly grant any other relief to the petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case, may also granted to the Petitioner..” 3. Prosecution story in a nutshell is that the respondent No.2/complainant lodged an FIR on 15.12.2022 in respect of an incident alleged to have occurred on the same day. The complainant, who was running a computer centre under the name Surendra Computers, was present in his shop at about 1:00 PM along with his father, Lilambar Nayak, and two staff members, when accused Siddharth Anant, Tehsildar of Baramkela (as posted in the year 2022), along with four other co-accused persons, allegedly entered the shop. It is alleged that Siddharth Anant struck the complainant’s father with an iron rod on the left side of his head, thereby causing serious injury. When the complainant and his staff tried to intervene, they immediately called Dial-112 and shifted the injured to Bilaigarh Hospital for treatment. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely and maliciously implicated in the present case. It is submitted that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner in the FIR or in any statement recorded by the witnesses at the 4 time of the incident, the petitioner’s name is not mentioned, nor is he alleged to have committed any overt act in furtherance of the alleged crime. The petitioner, who is employed as a clerk in the Tehsildar office, had only visited the complainant’s shop for photocopy work at the instructions of the Tehsildar and left the shop thereafter. At the time when the alleged assault on the complainant’s father by Siddharth Anant and other co-accused persons occurred, the petitioner was present in the Tehsil office and had no role whatsoever in the incident. The statement of the injured/deceased Lilambar Nayak, recorded after a delay of nearly two and a half years on 03.07.2024, is itself highly unreliable. The petitioner was arrested only on 14.06.2025, nearly three years after the alleged incident, and despite the police claiming that he was absconding, he was continuously attending his duties at the Tehsil office, as evidenced by the attendance records placed on record. The petitioner was subsequently granted regular bail by the learned trial Court on 19.06.2025, whereas the main accused, Siddharth Anant, had already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court (MCRCA No. 234/2023). It is further submitted that the medical report of the injured/deceased shows only a lacerated wound and no grievous injury sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 307 IPC. There is no direct evidence connecting the petitioner to the alleged crime, nor has any weapon allegedly used in the commission of the offence been recovered from him. The petitioner’s implication appears to have arisen out of a pre- 5 existing dispute between the complainant’s father and other clerks of the Tehsil office regarding the obtaining of certified copies in a revenue case. The investigation conducted against the petitioner is perfunctory and flawed, as is evident from the charge-sheet. Reliance is placed upon the settled law of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which holds that where the grounds of prosecution are so inherently improbable and baseless that no prudent person would allow the continuation of the proceedings, it is a fit case for quashing. In view of these facts and circumstances, it is submitted that the FIR, the charge-sheet, and the order taking cognizance of the offence be quashed in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet and submits that in the present matter, since the charge-sheet has already been filed and cognizance has already by the competent Court as such, this petition has virtually become infructuous and the same may be dismissed. 6. Further, from a bare perusal of the FIR, it appears that the complainant has alleged that on 15.12.2022, at around 1:00–2:00 PM, the then Tehsildar of Barmkela, Siddharth Anant, accompanied by four staff members, entered the complainant’s shop, Surendra Computers, and assaulted his father, Lilambar Nayak, by striking him on the left side of the head with a rod-like weapon, causing serious injury and profuse bleeding. The 6 complainant and his staff intervened and shifted the injured to Barmkela Hospital in a Dial-112 vehicle for treatment. The FIR further records that the offences allegedly committed fall under Sections 452, 307, and 34 of the IPC. During the investigation, the injured was medically examined and the injuries were described as grievous in nature. Statements of the complainant and witnesses were recorded, and a site map of the place of occurrence was prepared, including seizure of relevant items from the scene. Certain accused, including Siddharth Anant and Sanjay Singh Sidar, were granted anticipatory bail by this Court, while others were absconding at the time and their arrest was being pursued. One of the accused, Devesh Patel, was subsequently apprehended on 14.06.2025 and taken into police custody after he reportedly admitted his involvement. Prima facie, the FIR discloses serious allegations of criminal trespass, assault causing grievous injury, and participation in a common intention with other accused, which necessitates investigation under the relevant provisions of law. Sufficient evidence was found against the petitioner and the matter is still under investigation and needs to be brought to its logical end. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and after careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the FIR and subsequent 7 charge-sheet disclose prima facie allegations of serious offences, including criminal trespass, assault causing grievous injury, and acting in furtherance of a common intention, against the accused. The petitioner’s presence in the Tehsil office at the relevant time, or any other arguments regarding delay in recording statements, cannot obliterate the allegations made by the complainant or the material collected during investigation. 9. Considering the above, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the investigation, or the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition seeking quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet, and the proceedings arising therefrom is dismissed. The petitioner shall cooperate with the ongoing investigation and shall not obstruct the lawful process of the police. 10. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet