1 2025:CGHC:50059 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2971 of 2025 1 - Kaushalendra Kashyap S/o Late Daulat Ram Kashyap Aged About 36 Years R/o Chingrajpara School Chowk, Police Station- Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur C.G., Present Address Village- Nigarband, Police Station- Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur C.G. ... Applicant/Petitioner (Complainant) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur C.G. 2 - Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur C.G. 3 - Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 5 - Station House Officer, Police Station- Seepat, District Bilaspur C.G. 6 - Shyam Lal S/o Devprasad Kashyap Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Danganiya Khaira, Police Station- Seepat, District- Bilaspur C.G. 7 - Ghanshyam S/o Devprasad Kashyap Aged About 31 Years R/o Village- Danganiya Khaira, Police Station- Seepat, District- Bilaspur C.G. ...Non-applicants/Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/Applicant : Mr. Dharmesh Srivastava, Advocate. For State-Respondents : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 08-10-2025 Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.10.16 11:41:20 +0530 2 1. This The present CRMP has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS, 2023’) for a direction to the police authorities to conduct further investigation and to file supplementary charge sheet and also to pass an order for re-investigation in Crime No.265/2024 registered at Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur (C.G.). The petitioner is claiming following prayer in the present petition:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the police authorities to conduct further investigation under Section 193(9) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Crime No. 265/2024 registered at Police Station Seepat, including recording statements of eyewitnesses Gajraj Kashyap and Ramcharan Kashyap, and mandate addition of Gajraj Kashyap and Ramcharan Kashyap to the witness list in Final Report No. 279/2024 dated 17.08.2024, and file a supplementary charge-sheet, and further be pleased to pass an order for reinvestigation and action against all the accused persons namely Vedprakash @ Boulder, Kailash, Vinod, based on new evidence, including their arrest, and to provide police protection to the applicant, his family, Gajraj Kashyap under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, to ensure safety and fearless testimony, in the interest of justice.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is complainant in the present case on whose complaint one FIR under Section 302 of the IPC against suspected Shyamlal and his brothers for commission of murder of Doulatram Kaushik. The petitioner/complainant gave merg intimation to police on 26-05-2024 that today morning he was informed by is cousin brother Ritik Kashyap that his father is murdered by some unknown person and his dead body is tied in the tree at the side of Jagshala Road, Village Daganiya. He went on the spot and saw the injuries on dead body of his 3 father. The mark of dragging the dead body upto the tree was also seen by him and he found shoes and spectacles of his father on distance of about 40 meter. He raised suspicion that his father had purchased 9 acres of land in his name in which Vedprakash and his sons had cultivated on their behalf upto the year 2022 and when they asked him not to cultivate their field, he started quarrel with them and on this dispute his father was murdered. After postmortem of the dead body the FIR was registered for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The accused persons Shyamlal Kashyap and Ghanshyam Kashyap were arrested and on their memorandum statement weapon of offence, i.e., danda and clothes etc. Have been seized. After completion of usual investigation charge sheet has been filed on 17-08-2024 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur against two accused persons. 3. The petitioner has filed the present CRMP for a direction to the police to conduct further investigation under Section 193(9) of BNSS, 2023 and to file supplementary charge sheet and also to pass an order for re-investigation in the aforesaid crime number on the ground that certain further evidences came into knowledge of the complainant which are relevant in for the just decision of the case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the police authorities have failed to conduct proper investigation into the matter and the key suspects of the case have been left over by the police. They raised suspicion on Vedprakash, Kailash and Vinod, but they have not been interrogated. There are eye-witnesses Gajraj Kashyap and Ramcharan Kashyap, but their statements have not been recorded by the police. In such a tainted investigation there is every chance of defeat the ends of justice. He would also submit that with collision of the accused party the police has not recorded the statement of the eye-witness and they are under threat of the accused party. This Court has ample power to direct for further investigation 4 and to file supplementary charge sheet as provided under Section 193(9) of BNSS, 2023 to secure the ends of justice. Therefore, the petition may be allowed andb the police authorities may be directed to further investigate into the matter and to file supplementary charge sheet. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, on instruction, would submit that after due process of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against respondents No.6 and 7. During investigation the statement of Koushlendra Kashyap, Smt. Shakuntala Kaushik, Ramfal Kenwat, Sahorik Kenwat, Laxmi Sahu, Vikas and Vijay have been recorded in which they have raised suspicion on respondents No.6 and 7 and when they interrogated by the police they gave their memorandum statement about commission of offence and from them various articles have been seized. There is no disclosure of any eye-witness to the incident in the evidence of these witnesses. Even otherwise, during trial of the case if the learned trial Court considers that examination of any witness is required who has not summoned as witness, the Court shall summon and examine the said person if is evidence appears to it to be essential to just decision of the case. He would further submit, on instruction, that in the present sessions trial charges have been framed and upto to 20-08-2025, 6 witnesses have been examined and the trial is at its advance stage. At this stage further investigation in the case cannot be ordered. He would further submit that the learned trial Court has power to proceed against every person appearing to be guilty of offence as provided under Section 358 of BNSS, 2023. Therefore, there is no ground for directing the police authorities for further investigation or re-investigation in the case and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. The present petition is filed by the petitioner/complainant for a direction of further investigation into the matter on the ground that after filing of the 5 charge sheet, eye-witness to the incident namely Gajraj Kashyap and other witness Ramcharan Kashyap to whom Gajraj Kashyap disclosed about the incident whose evidence is relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act. The source from which they received information about the eye-witness have not been disclosed by the petitioner. From perusal of the complaint made by the petitioner on 10-07-2024 to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur which has been annexed as Annexure-A/2 with the petition it transpires that he came to know on 08-07-2024 from Ramcharan Kashyap that Gajraj Kashyap has seen the incident who disclosed it to Ramcharan Kashyap from whom he came to know about the fact. This complaint was given on 10-07-2024 to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur and on 16-07-2024 to the I.G., Police, Bilaspur range, however, charge sheet has been filed on 17-08-2024, therefore, it cannot be said that the police authorities had not enquired the case properly. The said witness Gajraj Kashyap had not approached to the police himself. From statement of any of the witnesses it does not come that Gajraj Kashyap has seen the incident or he disclosed the incident to any one, based on the material collected during the investigation the police has filed the charge sheet against the accused persons after recording statement of relevant witnesses. 8. The learned trial Court has power to summon material witness or examine the person present as provided under Section 348 of BNSS, 2023 (311 of Cr.P.C.) which reads as under:- “Power to summon material witness, or examine person present. 348. Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Sanhita, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or re-call and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any 6 such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.” 9. Further, the learned trial Court is also empowered to proceed against other person appearing to be guilty of offence as provided under Section 358 of BNSS (319 of Cr.P.C.) which reads as under:- “Power to Proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. 358. (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then- (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.” 10. The ground raised by the petitioner for a direction to the police for further investigation in the matter is not sufficient to direct further investigation into the matter when the charge sheet itself has been filed on 17-08-2024, charges have been framed and 6 witnesses have been examined. 7 11. In the matter of Rampal Gautam and others Vs. The State by Mahadevapura Police Station, Mahadevapura, Bengaluru & Anr. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1231 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 12 and 14 that:- “12. At the outset, we may record that a direction to conduct further Investigation even after filing of the chargesheet and commencement of the trial is permissible in law as has been held by a catena of Judgments of this Court. Reference in this regard may be made to Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat and Others [(2004) 5 SCC 347] wherein, this Court observed that the prime consideration for directing further investigation is to arrive at the truth and to do real substantial justice. The Court further observed that further investigation and re-investigation stand altogether on a different footing. Even de hors any direction from the Court, it is open to the police to conduct a proper Investigation notwithstanding the fact that the Court has already taken cognizance on the strength of a police report submitted earlier. However, a caveat was added that before directing such investigation, the Court or the concerned police officer has to apply mind to the material available on record and arrive at a satisfaction that Investigation of such allegations is necessary for the just decision of the case. 14. Undeniably, the complainant had the liberty to set out her entire case/grievances in her examination-in-chief and make a prayer to the trial Court that the remaining family members who had been left out, should also be proceeded against by summoning them under Section 319 CrPC. If, at all, certain facts were left out from being narrated in the deposition of the complainant, an application under Section 311 CrPC could have been filed for recalling her and for conducting the further examination. In any event, there was no 8 justification whatsoever for the High Court to have directed further investigation into the case at such a belated stage and that too, for the purpose of giving a handle to the complainant to improve upon her initial version so as to implicate her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law, who were admittedly living separately whereas, the spouse, i.e., the complainant and her husband were residing together at Bangalore, where the alleged acts of cruelty took place.” 12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, material available in the charge sheet, also in view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Section 348 and 358 of BNSS, 2023 (Section 311 and 319 of the Cr.P.C.), this Court does not find any sufficient ground to allow the petition and to direct the police authorities to further investigate into the matter and to file supplementary charge sheet. Accordingly, the present petition is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil