1 2025:CGHC:51815-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3175 of 2025 Ghanshyam Prasad Verma S/o Late Shri Nageshwar Prasad Verma Aged About 60 Years R/o House Number 2591a, Mig-Ii Housing Board Colony Industrial State Bhilai Thana - Jamul Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Durg (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Preeti Chaturvedi W/o Shri Anuj Chaturvedi Aged About 35 Years R/o EWS 1335 Near Jay Printers Housing Board Bhilai Jamul District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.10.2025 1 Heard Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.10.17 15:47:36 +0530 2 2 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “It, is therefore, prayed that the instant petition may kindly be allowed and the chargesheet/final report of crime no. 351/2024 registered at police station jamul, durg (cg) offence u/s 281, 325 of B.N.S. and section 4 and 10 of cg agricultural cattle preservation act and the proceeding of RCC NUMBER 33187/2025 pending before judicial magistrate 1st class durg (cg) against the petitioner may kindly be quashed, in the interest of justice.” 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire prosecution is based on a misconceived understanding of an unfortunate road accident that occurred on 22.09.2024, in which a calf lost its life. It is contended that the incident was purely accidental and devoid of any criminal intent, yet the petitioner has been unnecessarily implicated. It is submitted that the FIR was lodged by Respondent No. 2, who resides in the same locality as the petitioner, alleging that despite warnings, the petitioner drove his vehicle over a calf. However, a bare perusal of the FIR and the charge sheet demonstrates that no ingredients of the alleged offences under Sections 281 and 325 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), nor of Sections 4 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004, are made out. 4 Learned counsel submits that the investigation was conducted in a mechanical manner, and the charge sheet has been filed without any cogent or credible material connecting the petitioner 3 with the commission of any offence. It is contended that all the witnesses cited are either neighbours or interested persons closely associated with the complainant, and their statements are verbatim repetitions of the same story, which casts a serious doubt on their reliability. It is further argued that no independent or neutral witness has been examined to corroborate the allegation that the petitioner was driving rashly or negligently, or that he intentionally ran over the calf. On the contrary, the mechanical inspection of the vehicle clearly records that there were no dents, damages, or traces of collision, which conclusively rules out any impact or rash driving. 5 Learned counsel points out that the petitioner’s vehicle was equipped with a dashboard camera, and despite the petitioner’s repeated request, the investigating officer deliberately failed to collect and examine the footage, which would have clearly established his innocence. Photographs extracted from the dash cam footage, annexed to the petition, show that the petitioner was driving cautiously and that the calf suddenly came into a blind spot, resulting in an unintended mishap. It is submitted that the postmortem report of the calf also fails to establish any nexus between the injuries and the petitioner’s vehicle. The report merely states that death occurred due to shock and hemorrhage caused by a blunt and heavy object, but it does not attribute the injury specifically to vehicular impact, thus failing to connect the petitioner with the alleged act. 4 6 Learned counsel contends that Section 281 B.N.S., which corresponds to Section 279 IPC, requires rash or negligent driving endangering human life or personal safety, whereas the present case pertains only to an animal accident. Hence, the basic ingredients of the offence are entirely missing. Similarly, Section 325 B.N.S. (corresponding to Section 429 IPC) requires mens rea and intent to cause wrongful loss, which is wholly absent here. It is further argued that invocation of Sections 4 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 is completely misplaced, as the alleged incident does not involve slaughter, transportation, or sale of cattle, but merely an accidental death of a stray calf. Therefore, the application of these provisions is legally untenable and amounts to abuse of process. 7 Learned counsel submits that the charge sheet under Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.) was filed mechanically and belatedly without due application of mind, merely to harass the petitioner. There is no material in the charge sheet that could justify proceeding to trial or framing of charges. It is contended that even if the entire prosecution story is accepted as true, it does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence by the petitioner. The continuation of criminal proceedings, in such circumstances, would be a futile exercise, amounting to abuse of process of law and misuse of the criminal justice system. 5 8 It is thus submitted that the petitioner has been unnecessarily subjected to prolonged harassment despite full cooperation in the investigation. In the absence of any mens rea, credible evidence, or statutory basis for prosecution, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would serve no purpose and should be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 of BNSS. 9 On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the petition and submits that the investigation was conducted fairly and in accordance with law. It is contended that statements of the complainant and eye-witnesses clearly support the prosecution version that, despite warnings, the petitioner drove the vehicle and caused the death of the calf. The postmortem report also corroborates that the death resulted from injuries caused by a heavy object, consistent with the prosecution case. 10 It is further submitted that the police, after due investigation, found sufficient material to file a charge sheet, and the veracity of such evidence can be tested only during trial. Learned counsel argues that the disputed factual aspects raised by the petitioner, including the claim of accidental occurrence, require appreciation of evidence, which cannot be examined in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 of BNSS. 11 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6 12 In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) 6 SCC 73, the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circum- spection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/com- plaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. / 528 of BNSS is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. / 528 of BNSS, only has to consider whether or not the allegations of FIR. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 13 Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that the present petition does not warrant interference in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 of BNSS. The scope of interference is limited and is to be exercised sparingly, primarily to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice in cases where the allegations on the face of the record do not constitute an offence. 14 In the present case, the FIR and the charge sheet disclose cognizable offences under Sections 281 and 325 of the Bharatiya 7 Nyaya Sanhita, and Sections 4 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004, arising from an incident that allegedly resulted in the death of a calf. While the petitioner contends that the incident was accidental and denies any mens rea or wrongful intent, these are disputed questions of fact which require proper appreciation of evidence. At this stage, the Court cannot undertake a mini-trial or adjudicate the veracity of the evidence collected by the police. 15 It is well settled that the High Court should not normally interfere with a charge sheet or FIR merely on the ground that the petitioner disputes the allegations in view of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that quashing of criminal proceedings is permissible only in rare cases where the complaint or charge sheet does not disclose the commission of any offence, or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide or abuse of process. 16 The allegations, as reflected in the statements of the complainant and eye-witnesses, the site inspection, the post-mortem report, and the charge sheet, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences. The petitioner has had, and continues to have, the opportunity to raise all defenses, including claims of accidental occurrence and absence of mens rea, before the trial Court. Any disputed facts, including the reliability of witnesses or mechanical inspection of the vehicle, can only be tested and 8 appreciated during trial. 17 In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 of BNSS to quash the FIR or the charge sheet. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. It is, however, made clear that any observations made herein shall not prejudice the petitioner at trial, and the trial Court shall proceed to hear and decide the case in accordance with law, uninfluenced by this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu