1 2025:CGHC:31228-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2122 of 2022 Shiv Kumar Yadav S/o Suraj Prasad Yadav Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kasara, P.S. Patana, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Patna District Koriya, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dev Kumar S/o Diwan Rajak Aged About 50 Years R/o District Hospital Baikunthpur, Through Asi Lawang Singh P.S. Patan, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Seema Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent(s) / State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 08/07/2025 1. Heard Ms. Seema Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent No. 1. 2 2. The petitioner, by way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) has prayed for quashing of FIR bearing Crime No. 375/2021 for the offences punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC, registered at Police Station, Patna, District Koriya, on 13.11.2021. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a merg intimation was received by the police on 11.09.2021 with regard to an accidental death of deceased Neeraj Singh and during the course of investigation, it was found that the death had occurred because of some vehicle. After investigation, it was found that the petitioner is the owner of the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG-16-CL-8262 a pickup van carrying gas cylinder had caused the accident. 4. Ms. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no eye witness to the incident and the police, in order to harass the petitioner, has falsely roped the petitioner in the offence in question. The FIR was lodged against unknown person and nothing incriminating has been seized from the petitioner except the vehicle and that too, after a period of one month. On the date which is alleged to be the date of commission of offence, the vehicle was kept in the garage for maintenance and in this regard, the garage owner has also executed an affidavit in support of the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that investigation in the matter has been completed, charge sheet has been filed and even charges have 3 been framed against the petitioner and as such, no interference is warranted at this stage. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. Since the investigation has already been completed, charge sheet has been submitted by the police and even charges have been framed against the petitioner, at this stage, we are not inclined to interfere with the matter and the petitioner is at liberty to take all please and raise grounds before the trial Court concerned, if so advised. 7. As a result, this petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.07.09 11:43:37 +0530