1 2025:CGHC:51814-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3170 of 2025 Bhuvneshwar Jharia S/o Sohanlal Jharia Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Ajhawar, P.S. Sahapur, District- Dindori (M.P.), Presently Residing At Ambedkar Chowk, Siltara, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent of Police District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - The Station House Officer Police Station - Simga, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Prakash Sahu S/o Hari Ram Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Gram Karkena, Hirri District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Pragati Pandey, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, 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 Ms. Pragati Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 3. 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 this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and consequently quash the dated 29.06.2024 bearing Crime No. 208/2024 registered at Police Station Simga, District Baloda Bazar (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304-A, 338 of the IPC and Charge Sheet No. 353/2024 dated 08.11.2024offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304-A, 338 of the IPC. (ANNEXURE P-1) Also, the consequential Criminal Case registered vide order dated 21.11.2024 whereby the learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the impugned thereby has registered the Criminal Case No: chargesheet and impugned criminal case as 1154/2024 which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Simga, Balodabazar (C.G), against the Petitioners pursuant to the aforesaid charge sheet, may also be quashed. (ANNEXURE P-2) That the impugned charges framed by the learned Trail court dated 18.02.2025 against the petitioners for commission of an offence U/s 279 and U/s 304A IPC (ANNEXURE P-2)and all consequent proceedings (if any) incidental & accidental thereto.” 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide written complaint dated 29.06.2024, the informant, who happened to be the brother of the deceased namely Jagguram Sahu, lodged a complaint before Police Station Tikrapara, District Raipur. Pursuant to the said complaint, an FIR bearing Crime No. 208/2024 was registered at Police Station Simga, District Baloda Bazar (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304-A and 338 of the IPC against an unknown person. A perusal of the FIR would reveal that on 17.06.2024, an accident occurred involving a vehicle bearing registration number CG13-D-7118 on the road from Siltara to Bilaspur, wherein the said vehicle, allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent manner by an unknown driver, dashed into a stationary vehicle, causing injuries to one Jagguram Sahu, who was working as a helper. The injured was initially treated at CHC Simga, thereafter referred to DKS Hospital, Raipur, and as his condition deteriorated, he was taken back to his village on medical advice, where he succumbed to his injuries on 26.07.2024. 4. It is further submitted that consequent upon the said demise, the FIR which was initially registered under Sections 279 and 337 IPC was later altered to include Section 304-A IPC upon receipt of death intimation and Section 338 IPC based on medical opinion. During investigation, the owner of the offending vehicle stated before the police that the petitioner herein was the driver of the said vehicle. Solely on the basis of this statement, the petitioner 4 was arrayed as an accused in the FIR. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested on 31.08.2024, but was later released on bail as the offences were bailable in nature. Subsequently, a charge sheet bearing No. 353/2024 was filed against the petitioner on 08.11.2024 and further the order taking cognizance has been passed on 21.11.2024 in Criminal Case No. 1154/2024 as well as the order framing charge has been passed on 18.02.2025. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he had earlier worked under the employment of the said vehicle owner, who was also the employer of the deceased, only for a short duration of about two months (January 2024 to February 2024), after which he left the said employment and returned to his native place at District Dindori, Madhya Pradesh. Thereafter, from April 2024 onwards, he was engaged as a bus operator at Bharat Institute of Nursing College, Dindori, and was regularly marking his attendance there. On the alleged date of the incident, i.e., 17.06.2024, the petitioner was very much present at the said institute, performing his official duties, which is duly reflected in the attendance register bearing his signature. The FIR was initially registered against an unknown person, and only after recording of the statement of the employer, the petitioner’s name was inserted in the FIR. This itself shows that the deceased and the petitioner were not acquainted, and the subsequent implication of the petitioner was a result of false and motivated allegations. The petitioner was deceitfully called from his village by his former 5 employer under the pretext of settling pending dues and was thereafter falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner was coerced and induced at the police station, where his signatures were forcibly obtained against his free will. No Test Identification Parade (TIP) was ever conducted, and despite such lapses, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused merely on the uncorroborated statement of his former employer. 6. Furthermore, the driving licence of the petitioner was also forcibly taken and deposited at the police station, reflecting mala fide intention and procedural irregularity on part of the complainant and investigating agency. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully submitted that the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner are arbitrary, illegal, and abuse of the process of law. 7. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) and Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, wherein the Apex Court has held that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) / 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) may be exercised to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The registration of a criminal case by 6 any agency, whether by the police or by the Court, is a serious act. When, on the face of the record, no offence is made out against the petitioner, the continuance of such proceedings amounts to an abuse of process of law. In the present case, the allegations made in the charge sheet and the material collected during investigation, even if accepted as true, do not prima facie constitute any offence against the petitioner. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the petition and submits that the investigation has been carried out strictly in accordance with law and that sufficient material has been collected during investigation to prima facie establish the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. It is contended that the name of the petitioner surfaced during investigation on the basis of the statement of the vehicle owner and other witnesses, and the same cannot be brushed aside at this stage. The charge sheet has already been filed before the competent Court after completion of due investigation, and cognizance has been rightly taken by the learned Magistrate. 9. It is further submitted by the learned State counsel that the truthfulness or otherwise of the evidence and the defence plea of the petitioner are matters to be adjudicated only during trial, after appreciation of evidence. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. / 528 of BNSS is limited and should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution at its threshold. The State, 7 therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition, submitting that no case for interference in exercise of inherent powers is made out. 10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. 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 circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, 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 FIRR. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 12. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, this Court finds no ground to interfere in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. / 528 of BNSS. The scope of interference at this stage is extremely 8 limited. The inherent power of this Court is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, and only in cases where the complaint or charge sheet on the face of it does not disclose the commission of any offence or where the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. 13. In the present case, the allegations made in the FIR and the charge sheet, as well as the statements recorded during investigation, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC. The material collected by the investigating agency cannot be said to be so absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person could reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner. The plea of false implication and the defence based on attendance records and employment status are disputed questions of fact which require appreciation of evidence and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 of BNSS. 14. It is well settled that at the stage of cognizance or framing of charge, the Court is not required to meticulously examine the sufficiency of evidence, but only to see whether the material collected discloses a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused. The veracity, reliability, or correctness of the evidence can only be tested during trial. The petitioner will have ample opportunity to raise all such contentions before the trial Court at 9 the appropriate stage. 15. In view of the above and applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not fall within any of the categories warranting quashment of criminal proceedings. The allegations and material on record do not demonstrate that the prosecution is actuated by mala fide intention or that the continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court. 16. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. The same is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observation made herein shall not prejudice the rights of the petitioner during trial, and the trial Court shall proceed independently in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made in this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu