1 2025:CGHC:57123-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3579 of 2025 Mithlesh Kumar Paswan S/o Suklesh Kumar Paswan Aged About 25 Years R/o Talsabriya Thana Majhiao, District- Gadwa, Jharkhand, ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The S.H.O. Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Daulat Patel S/o Late Shri Onkar Patel Aged About 50 Years R/o Madhuban Para, Modipara Thana City Kotwali, Raigarh District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 25 .11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No.1. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.11.25 16:03:15 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “1. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023 filed by the petitioner. 2. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 74/2025 registered at Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, District Raigarh, CG dated 14.02.2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 105 of BNS. 3. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the consequential entire charge sheet bearing No. 91/2025 dated 10.04.2025 arising out of the aforesaid FIR filed for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 105 of BNS & 3/181, 5/180 of Motor Vehicle Act, filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Raigarh, C.G. 4. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 30.07.2025 and other subsequent orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Raigarh, CG. taking cognizance of the aforementioned charge sheet. 5. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the all consequential orders arising therefrom and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1016/2025 titled "State of Chhattisgarh vs. Mithilesh Paswan and others" pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Raigarh, C.G.” 3. Brief facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the complainant lodged a report on 14.02.2025 at Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, District Raigarh, alleging that on 13.02.2025 at about 10:15 PM, his elder 3 brother Bodhram Patel met with a fatal road accident near Ambedkar Chowk. It was reported that a 12-wheel truck bearing registration No. CG 13 AR 5750, being driven at high speed and in a negligent manner in a restricted no-entry zone, dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased, resulting in severe crushing injuries leading to his instantaneous death. Eyewitnesses stated that the driver failed to stop the vehicle despite knowing that the victim was trapped, and immediate stopping could have saved his life. 4. On the basis of the report, FIR No. 74/2025 was registered on 14.02.2025 for the offence under Section 105 of the BNS and investigation commenced. The petitioner (driver of the truck) was arrested on the same day and was granted bail on 22.04.2025. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet No. 91/2025 dated 10.04.2025 was filed for offences under Section 105 of BNS and Sections 3/181 and 5/180 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, took cognizance vide order dated 30.07.2025 and the case is now pending trial. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR itself appears to be an afterthought and has been registered only with a view to falsely implicate the petitioner. It is urged that the petitioner was not driving the alleged offending vehicle at the time of the accident; rather, he is merely employed as a Munshi/Clerk under one Himanshu Agrawal, who is also a co-accused in the case. To substantiate this, reliance is placed on the dispatch challan issued by Jay Maa Sharda 4 Minerals (Annexure P/4), which clearly records the name of another person as the driver of the vehicle on the relevant date. Further, the muster roll maintained by the employer (Annexure P/5) categorically mentions the petitioner only as a clerk, thereby corroborating that he was not engaged as a driver. It is also pointed out that the petitioner’s father had promptly informed the competent authority by written communication (Annexure P/6 collectively) asserting that his son has no involvement in the alleged incident. 6. Learned counsel further submits that even as per the charge- sheet filed by the prosecution, the statement of Turendra Singh Rajput, Manager of Jay Maa Sharda Minerals, recorded under Section 80 BNSS, clearly states that the vehicle in question had been taken on the relevant day by one Pardeshi Sahu @ Prem along with Manager Mithilesh Kumar Paswan. This evidence collected by the police itself supports the petitioner’s stand and demolishes the allegation of him being the driver. It is contended that in such circumstances, the Courts must exercise caution to prevent misuse of the criminal process so that innocent persons are not subjected to unwarranted harassment. Learned counsel submits that even if the entire prosecution case is accepted as it stands, no ingredients of the alleged offences are made out against the petitioner, and the continuation of proceedings against him would be a gross abuse of the process of law. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the 5 FIR and charge-sheet have been filed on the basis of due investigation, and the material collected during inquiry prima facie discloses the petitioner’s involvement. It is contended that the disputed facts raised by the petitioner, including the dispatch challan, muster roll, and private communications, are matters of evidence which cannot be examined at this stage and are to be proved during trial. Learned State counsel, therefore, submits that no case is made out for quashing of proceedings. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record with utmost circumspection. 9. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the investigating agency, after registering the FIR on the complaint lodged by the informant, conducted a detailed and comprehensive investigation. During investigation, statements of several witnesses were recorded, relevant documents were seized, and the offending vehicle was examined. Upon completion of investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet before the competent Court, and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh has already taken cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioner. 10. At this stage, the petitioner seeks to challenge the very substratum of the prosecution case by asserting that he was not driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident and that he was merely sitting in the vehicle. He has further relied upon the dispatch challan, muster roll, and other supporting materials to establish that another 6 person was actually driving the vehicle. These contentions, however, relate to disputed questions of fact which require appreciation of evidence and cannot be adjudicated in a petition invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 11. Once the charge sheet has been filed and cognizance taken, the proper course available to the petitioner is to raise all such pleas before the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage of the proceedings, including by filing an application for discharge, if so advised. It is not for this Court, in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S., to determine the correctness of such factual assertions or to sift and weigh the evidence collected by the prosecution. 12. In light of the aforesaid circumstances, no ground is made out for interference at this stage. The petition, being devoid of substance, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, it is observed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to urge all permissible pleas including the contention that he was not the driver of the offending vehicle before the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage. If such an application or plea is filed, the learned trial Court shall consider and decide the same on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, and without being influenced by any observation contained in this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu