1 2025:CGHC:47103-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2871 of 2025 1 - Pankaj Kumar Singh S/o Shri Anil Singh, Aged About 44 Years R/o Mahesh Colony, Street No. 6, Police Station - Gudhiyaari, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Basantpur, Wadrafnagar, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) 2 - Shri Kaela Ram, S/o Late Ramprasad, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village - Basantpur Patel Para Police Station - Basantpur, Wadrafnagar, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) :Shri Himanshu Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/State :Shri Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.09.15 18:31:25 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15.09.2025 1. The present Cr.M.P. has been filed with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash/set aside : - i. First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 47/2024 dated 30/03/2024 u/s 279,337, of I.P.C 1860 registered at Police Station-Basantpur, Wadrafnagar, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh; ii. The consequential Chargesheet bearing No. 85/2024 dated 01/08/2024 u/s 279,337,338 of I.P.C 1860 of Police Station - Basantpur, Wadrafnagar, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, arising out of the aforesaid FIR, filed for the commission of offence punishable under Section 279,337, of I.P.C 1860; iii. The order dated 13/08/2024 of Criminal Case no. 584/2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wadrafnagar, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj, 3 Chhattisgarh taking cognizance of the aforementioned charge sheet; iv. And The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 584/24 titled 'State of Chhattisgarh vs. Pankaj Kumar Singh', pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wadrafnagar, District - Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.” 2. That, as per the prosecution story, a complaint was lodged by Kaela Ram regarding an accident caused by a Breeza Car bearing registration No. CG 04 LL 5112. Based on the same, the police registered an offence against the present petitioner. Thereafter, A.S.I. Shri Dhansingh Sandilya lodged FIR No. 47/2024 at Police Station Basantpur, Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur–Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh against the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested in Crime No. 47/2024 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Since the matter was bailable, the petitioner was released on bail. 3. Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge- sheet bearing No. 85/2024 dated 01.08.2024 before the Court of the Jurisdictional Magistrate, Wadrafnagar, District 4 Balrampur–Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated, as neither the FIR nor the charge sheet discloses the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. It is urged that there was an unexplained delay of six days in lodging the FIR, and the complainant initially admitted that he had not seen the car number, later claiming to have been informed by a neighbour. The witness statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS, 2023 are contradictory because some of the witnesses stated that the driver fled away from the spot, while another stated that the driver stopped, disclosed his name, and then left. It is contended that vague and inconsistent allegations have been given the colour of a criminal offence, amounting to abuse of process. Hence, the petitioner prays that the FIR and subsequent proceedings be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. On consideration of the submissions and material on record, it is observed that on the basis of some contradiction in the statement of the witnesses, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the impugned charge sheet. But after having gone through material available on record, it is evident that the FIR was registered against the petitioner’s vehicle, which was involved in the accident as a result of which the victim/complainant suffered injuries and mere contradictions in the statements of the alleged eye-witnesses, at this stage, do not warrant interference. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere. 8. The petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. 9. No order as to costs Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib