1 2025:CGHC:58501-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3667 of 2025 Akash Yadav S/o Rajkumar Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Ganiyari, Tehsil Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Present R/o Gali No. 10, Shesh Colony, Vidyaup Nagar, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Superintendent of Police Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Arjit Tiwari, 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 0 3 .12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Arjit Tiwari, 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: 2025.12.03 15:13:16 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “I. That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to produce the entire record pertaining to the case of petitioner. II. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the First Information Report bearing Crime Number 359/2024 dated 16.04.2024 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur, under Sections 25,27 of the Arms act and Section 34 of the Indian penal Code 1860, against the petitioner herein as well as Charge sheet No.264 of 2024 dated 12.06.2024 and all consequent criminal proceedings in respect of Petitioner herein in light of justice and equity. III. That this Hon'ble court may further be pleased to pass anyother order in favor of petitioner as it may deem fit and properunder the facts and circumstances of the case with cost.” 3. Mr. Arjit Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case, although the genesis of the FIR pertains solely to an incident dated 16.04.2024 involving co-accused Ritesh Nikhare @ Maddy and his associates, who were allegedly seen creating public fear and nuisance within Bilaspur city while brandishing weapons and driving recklessly. It is submitted that the police later intercepted vehicle No. CG10AN9100 and recovered a country-made revolver, a sword, and a baseball bat from the possession of the 3 said co-accused, and no recovery whatsoever was made from the present petitioner, nor was he apprehended at the spot. Learned counsel submits that the gravamen of the FIR relates only to the alleged recovery and public display of such weapons, and there is not even a remote allegation or material indicating any role, presence, or participation of the petitioner in the alleged incident. 4. Mr. Tiwari further contends that the entire prosecution case against the petitioner is founded on conjectures and hearsay, as the petitioner’s name surfaced only subsequently during investigation without any substantive or corroborative evidence. Significantly, the principal accused, Ritesh Nikhare @ Maddy, from whose vehicle the alleged weapons were seized, has already been acquitted by the learned Trial Court, rendering continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner—who was neither present nor found with any incriminating material—a sheer abuse of the process of law. 5. It is also urged by Mr. Tiwari that the petitioner has been unnecessarily roped into Crime No. 103/2025 on wholly unsustainable grounds. The prosecution has failed to bring any material to show that the petitioner was involved in the execution of the alleged sale deed in any manner. Learned counsel submits that the complainant has acted with mala fide intent to harass the petitioner, as even the alleged purchaser was neither named in the FIR nor arrayed in the charge-sheet dated 23.07.2025. 4 Therefore, fastening criminal liability upon the petitioner in absence of any legally admissible evidence is wholly unwarranted. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1, opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and contends that there is no infirmity in the prosecution case warranting interference at this stage. He submits that during investigation, sufficient material surfaced indicating the petitioner’s involvement, and accordingly charge-sheet has been filed against him. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not available throughout the investigation and was shown as an absconder, which itself demonstrates his conscious avoidance of the legal process. 7. Mr. Jain, learned Panel Lawyer further submits that the trial against the petitioner is presently pending, and therefore, the disputed questions raised by the petitioner, as well as the evidentiary issues sought to be urged, can appropriately be adjudicated only by the learned trial Court during the course of trial. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and have carefully perused the pleadings, documents, and material available on record. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and upon careful perusal of the pleadings, documents and material on 5 record, this Court finds that the petitioner’s challenge to the impugned FIR and the charge-sheet cannot be sustained at this interlocutory stage. 10. The genesis of the FIR (Crime No. 359/2024 dated 16.04.2024 at Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur) relates to an incident of public disturbance and alleged recovery of a country-made revolver, a sword and a baseball bat from the vehicle bearing registration No. CG10-AN-9100. The gravamen of the prosecution case is the recovery and alleged use/display of such weapons in a public place. The record, however, shows that the alleged recoveries were effected from the vehicle of the main accused Ritesh Nikhare @ “Maddy” and his associates; there is no material on record to demonstrate any recovery from the person or possession of the present petitioner. 11. It is not in dispute that a charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner and that the trial is presently pending. It is also on record that the petitioner was shown as an absconder during the investigation. These facts are relevant and weigh against entertaining a premature quashing petition. The fact of being an absconder and the filing of a charge-sheet indicate that the investigating agency had material sufficient to proceed to trial, and such administrative and procedural acts cannot be lightly brushed aside without a full trial. 12. The real controversy in this petition relates to disputed questions 6 of fact, the extent of the petitioner’s involvement (if any), the provenance of the alleged recoveries, the nature of the role played by each accused, and the credibility and probative value of the prosecution witnesses. These issues call for appreciation of evidence, recording of testimony and evaluation of witnesses, functions that are squarely within the province of the trial Court. This Court is therefore not persuaded to undertake a roving inquiry or to make tentative assessments of disputed facts in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. 13. Though it is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the principal accused has been acquitted and that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process, the plea of acquittal of another accused does not ipso facto compel quashing of proceedings against every person named in the same FIR. Whether the acquittal of co-accused affects the prosecution’s case against the petitioner is a matter which the trial Court is best placed to consider in the light of the entire evidence. 14. In view of the foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no palpable illegality or demonstrable abuse of process on the face of the record which would justify interference at this stage by invoking Section 528 BNSS. Interference would amount to premature adjudication of contested factual questions and a usurpation of the trial Court’s domain. 7 15. Resultantly, the instant petition under Section 528 BNSS (seeking production of records, quashing of FIR Crime No. 359/2024 dated 16.04.2024, quashing of Charge-sheet No. 264/2024 dated 12.06.2024 and consequential proceedings) is dismissed as being devoid of merit. 16. The petitioner shall, however, be at liberty to raise all permissible and relevant grounds before the learned trial Court during the course of trial. 17. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu