1 2025:CGHC:52102-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3193 of 2025 Lachhan Rai S/o Late Parganiya Rai Aged About 60 Years Resident Of Village Daragaon, Dhamdha, Dist- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Ministry Of Home Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur District- Raipur 2 - The Station House Officer Police Station Dhamdha, District- Durg (C.G.) 3 - Birendra Chandel S/o Atmaram Chandel Aged About 23 Years Resident Of Village Daragaon, Dhamdha, Durg District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raza Ali, 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 27.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Raza Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.10.28 10:37:25 +0530 2 Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.1 and 2 / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the criminal miscellaneous petition and quash the F.I.R. / Crime No. 209/2016 registered as P.S. City Kotwali Raigarh, Dist-Raigarh (C.G.) the subsequent charge sheet as well as the criminal proceeding pending before learned Special Judge Raigarh, Dist- Raigarh (C.G.) in Special Session Case No. 05/2019 (Under Depositor Interest Act), in the interest of justice.” 3. Prosecution story in a nutshell is that the complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent police alleging that on 24.04.2025 the petitioner went to his house, demanded repayment of a loan earlier advanced to him, and abused his father. When the complainant returned home, his family informed him of the incident, whereafter he went to the petitioner’s house, and it is alleged that the petitioner assaulted him with an axe. On this basis, FIR No. 49/2025 was registered for the offence under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC and later committed to the Court of Sessions, where cognizance was taken on 21.08.2025. The petitioner’s application for discharge was rejected, and charges were framed under Section 109 of BNS by order dated 09.09.2025. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no material in the charge-sheet to constitute the alleged offence, as there was no premeditated plan or intention to cause death, nor any medical evidence supporting such allegation. The complainant himself admitted taking a loan from the petitioner, and the false allegations have been made only to evade repayment. Further, the medical evidence and surrounding circumstances further support the petitioner’s innocence. The MLC dated 24.04.2025 and the sonography report dated 26.04.2025 show that the abdomen and pelvis were within normal limits, and no injury sufficient to cause death was found. The FIR was lodged belatedly at 1:54 a.m. on 25.04.2025, yet the MLC was conducted earlier at 10:00 p.m. on 24.04.2025 without any prior complaint, raising serious doubt about the prosecution story. All witnesses are relatives of the complainant, and no independent witness has been examined. The petitioner, aged about 60 years, could not have assaulted a 23-year-old complainant in the manner alleged. 5. He further submits that the registration of the FIR and continuation of criminal proceedings are a clear abuse of the process of law, actuated by mala fides and vengeance. The investigation has been carried out in violation of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the action of the respondents amounts to malice in law and in fact. The present case squarely falls within the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, particularly parameter no. 7, 4 where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intent. The acts of omission and commission on part of the authorities infringe the petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The misuse of police machinery to oppress a citizen is impermissible in a society governed by the rule of law hence, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed in the interest of justice. 6. Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the prayer for quashing of the criminal proceedings and submits that in the present matter, since the charge-sheet has already been filed, charges have already been framed, discharge application of the petitioner has already been rejected and trial has started and 02 prosecution witnesses have already been examined, as such, this petition has virtually become infructuous and the same may be dismissed. 7. The learned State Counsel, opposing the petition, further submits that a bare perusal of the charge-sheet reveals that sufficient material has been collected during investigation to prima facie establish the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. As per the prosecution story, on 24.04.2025, complainant Virendra Chandel, aged about 23 years, resident of village Dargaon, Police Station- Dhamdha, District- Durg, lodged a report stating that on returning home from work, his father informed him that the accused, namely Lachhan Rai, had come to demand repayment of the loan amount and had abused him. Thereafter, 5 when the complainant went to the house of the accused to clarify and return the amount, he met the son of the accused, who informed him that his father was not at home. While the complainant was returning home around 8:40 p.m., near Balram Rai’s grocery shop, the accused suddenly emerged from hiding and, while hurling abuses, attacked the complainant with a sickle with the intention to kill him, causing injuries below the left ear, near the neck, and on the right thigh. The complainant was rescued by his relatives and taken for treatment, and an FIR was lodged accordingly. During investigation, the accused was arrested, and his memorandum statement was recorded, wherein he confessed to the assault and produced the tangia (axe-like weapon) used in the offence, which was duly seized. The investigation also included seizure memos, site inspection, witness statements, Patwari map, X-ray, sonography, and forensic reports, all of which corroborate the prosecution version. Finding sufficient evidence against the accused, charge-sheet No. 62/2025 dated 10.07.2025 was filed before the competent Court, thereby justifying the cognizance and framing of charge against the petitioner. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed, charges have already been framed against the petitioner, trial has 6 already been started and 02 prosecution witnesses have already been examined, as such, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the present matter. Furthermore, the material collected during investigation, including the memorandum statement of the petitioner, seizure of weapon, medical report, and witness statements, prima facie disclose the commission of the alleged offence hence, it is obligatory that the trial be brought to a logical end. 10. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this petition. The petition lacks merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet