1 2025:CGHC:54806-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 575 of 2025 1 - Balmeet Singh Saluja S/o Late Malk Singh Saluja Aged About 46 Years R/o Ward No. 08, Bemetara, District Bemetara C.G. 2 - Meher Saluja S/o Balmeet Saluja Aged About 19 Years R/o House No. 221, Ward No. 8 Guru Govind Singh Ward Raipur Road, Bemetara, Bemetara C.G. (In Jail) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Home Affairs Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Director General Of Police, Chhattisgarh Police Headquarters, Sector 19, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - Superintendent Of Police, District Bemetara C.G. 4 - Station House Officer, Police Station Bemetara, District Bemetara C.G. --- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Respondents-State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 11 .11 .2025 AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.11.11 18:08:33 +0530 2 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “(i) Quash the FIR No. 662/2025 dated 27.10.2025 registered at Police Station Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) under Sections 281, 125(a), and 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 112 and 183 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as being false, arbitrary, mala fide, and devoid of legal ingredients; (ii) Direct that the investigation into the road accident dated 26.10.2025 be transferred to an independent agency or senior supervisory officer not connected with the local police, to ensure fairness and impartiality; a (iii) Issue appropriate directions to the Respondent-State to ensure protection to the life, liberty, and property of the Petitioners and their family members against any further harassment or threat arising from political influence or media trial; and (iv) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just, and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that petitioner No. 1 is the father of petitioner No. 2 and the registered owner of the Defender vehicle bearing registration No.CG-25-P-9988. On 26.10.2025, petitioner No. 2 was driving the aforesaid Defender vehicle from Durg towards Bemetara and on the same direction, a goods vehicle of 3 Ashok Leyland bearing registration number CG-07-CA-7581 was travelling ahead of the aforesaid defender transporting around thirty-five persons. While both vehicles were proceeding towards Kasar Petrol Pump, Bemetara, an animal suddenly appeared on the road, compelling the goods-vehicle driver to apply a sudden and forceful brake in the middle of the road, due to which, the Defender vehicle of Petitioner No. 2, which was proceeding at a moderate speed, collided with the rear portion of the goods vehicle, causing an accidental impact. Unfortunately, one passenger of the goods vehicle succumbed to injuries, and two others sustained minor injuries. Soon after the collision, a large number of persons gathered at the site. Within minutes, the crowd turned violent, pelting stones and vandalising the Petitioner's vehicle. Fearing for his life and being surrounded by the mob, petitioner No. 2 fled from the spot in a state of panic to seek safety at his home. Based on above facts, offence has been registered against the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the essential ingredients of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita namely, intention or knowledge of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death completely absent. The petitioner neither had intention nor knowledge to cause such harm; the collision was sudden and unavoidable consequence of the abrupt braking by the vehicle ahead. Learned counsel submits that the ingredients of Section 281 BNS (rash driving), Section 125(a) BNS (causing hurt by rash or negligent act), and Section 183 of the Motor Vehicles Act (driving at 4 excessive speed) are also not satisfied. No evidence of over speeding, dangerous driving, or violation of any traffic rule has been produced by the prosecution. No mechanical-inspection report, speed-analysis record, or CCTV footage supports the prosecution version. Learned counsel further submits that the estimated loss caused to the Petitioners' property in the said mob attack is approximately 3.5 crores, including damage to automobiles worth about 1.2 crores. Several residents of the locality witnessed the incident and can confirm the presence of a large, violent mob. Hence, this Court may quash the FIR and allow the petition. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that, as per the FIR, after colliding with the loaded vehicle, petitioner No. 2 drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, fully aware that his actions could endanger the lives of others. It is further submitted that petitioner No. 2 hit motorcyclists near Sheetla Temple at Karma Mata Chowk, struck another motorcyclist in front of Sandeepani School before Jai Super Market, and collided with several individuals, a car, and a motorcycle at various other locations, thereby causing injuries to multiple persons. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 6. As per the contents of the FIR, after the initial collision near Kasar Petrol Pump, Bemetara, petitioner No. 2, who was driving the Defender vehicle bearing registration No. CG-25-P-9988, allegedly 5 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, fully conscious that his actions were likely to endanger human life and the safety of others. It is further alleged in the FIR that petitioner No. 2, while fleeing from the spot, struck several persons and vehicles at different locations, including hitting motorcyclists near Sheetla Temple at Karma Mata Chowk, colliding with another motorcyclist in front of Sandeepani School before Jai Super Market, and further causing damage and injuries to multiple individuals, one car, and another motorcycle along the route. 7. In view of the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against petitioner No. 2, as well as his conduct as reflected in the contents of the FIR, particularly his act of fleeing from the scene and causing successive collisions at different locations, thereby exhibiting recklessness and disregard for human safety, it is evident that the allegations prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences involving rash and negligent driving, resulting in the loss of life and injuries to several persons. Accordingly, at this stage, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. 8. In the result, the present petition stands dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/ Amardeep