1 2025:CGHC:53187-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3276 of 2025 Sharad Dubey S/o Late Ganesh Dubey Aged About 65 Years R/o Khamariya, Police Station- Seepat, District Bilaspur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- Seepat, District Bilaspur C.G. 2 - Sheikh Sajjad S/o Sheikh Ahmed Aged About 50 Years R/o Luthra, Police Station- Seepat, District Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.10.31 19:07:21 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 31.10.2025 1. The present Cr.M.P. has been filed with the following prayer:- “(i) Quash the impugned FIR dated 29.07.2025 bearing Crime No. 432/2025 registered at Police Station Seepat, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence under Section 106(1) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 against the petitioner. (ii) Quash the impugned Final Report No. 401//2025 dated 28.08.2025 filed by Police Station, Seepat, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur for the offence under Section 106(1) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 135 of Electricity Act against the petitioner. (iii) Quash the order of cognizance dated 04.09.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (Electricity Act),Bilaspur and entire criminal proceedings pending in Special Sessions Case (Electricity) No. 91/2025 before the learned Special Judge (Electricity Act), Bilaspur District-Bilaspur for the offence under Section 106(1) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 135 of Electricity Act against the petitioner. (iv) Grant any other relief (s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in favour of petitioner may also be granted.” 2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 25.06.2025, respondent No. 2 lodged an intimation at Police Station Seepat stating that one Munshiram Kango, who had gone to repair 3 the electricity connection of the borewell installed in the petitioner’s field, was electrocuted and died during the said work at about 3:30 PM. Based on this intimation, Merg No. 58/2025 was registered, and during the merg enquiry, the police prepared a Crime Details Report and site map. As per the map, the petitioner’s field was marked as “E”, situated on the left side, while the deceased was found dead in the field marked as “A”, belonging to one Nawab Khan. The electric pole involved in the incident was located between fields marked “A” and “B”, belonging to Nawab Khan and Sheikh Sajjad Khan respectively. The map thus clearly shows that two other fields lie between the petitioner’s field and the field where the incident occurred. 3. After completion of the merg enquiry, an FIR bearing Crime No. 432/2025 was registered on 29.07.2025 against the petitioner for the offence under Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and a charge sheet was later filed before the learned JMFC, Bilaspur. Meanwhile, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the learned trial Court vide order dated 21.08.2025. The petitioner submits that the deceased never entered his field for any repair work and that he has been 4 falsely implicated in the case without any evidence connecting him to the alleged incident. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR dated 29.07.2025, charge sheet, and cognizance order dated 04.09.2025 are bad in law and liable to be quashed, as no prima facie offence under Section 106(1) of the BNS is made out against the petitioner. The Crime Details Report and map prepared by the investigating agency itself clearly show that the place of incident is in the field of Nawab Khan, marked as “A,” whereas the petitioner’s field, marked as “E,” is situated at a considerable distance with two fields lying in between. Even the map prepared by the Junior Engineer, CSPDCL, confirms this distance, disproving the prosecution’s version. The petitioner never took any illegal electricity connection, and the deceased never entered his field for repair work. The entire case rests on false and baseless allegations, contrary to the prosecution’s own documents. The present proceedings are maliciously instituted with ulterior motives, causing grave injustice to the petitioner. Hence, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law, and the same deserves to be quashed. 5 5. Learned State counsel submits that the FIR was properly registered based on the report of electrocution of Munshiram Kango while repairing the petitioner’s bore connection. At this stage, a prima facie case is made out, and the cognizance order is proper. Hence, the petition for quashing is baseless and deserves dismissal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition. 7. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the present petition has been filed seeking quashment of the FIR lodged against him and entire criminal proceedings arising out of FIR. 8. The jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR, or charge-sheet is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly. Courts ordinarily do not interfere with investigations of cognizable offences. FIRs may be quashed only where allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence. In State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 605, the Apex Court held that quashing is permissible in rare cases, such as where allegations are frivolous, inherently improbable, or mala fide. Similarly, in Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill, reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj 6 v. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259, and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd., reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, it was held that a prima facie case prevents quashing, though patently absurd allegations may be quashed. Further, in Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Court emphasized that Courts cannot probe the reliability of allegations at the threshold. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 540, it was reiterated that probabilities of the prosecution case or mala fide intent cannot be assessed at the quashing stage. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel, and upon perusal of the FIR, charge sheet, site map, and other documents on record, this Court finds that the FIR was registered on the report of respondent No. 2 regarding the death of one Munshiram Kango due to electrocution while repairing an electricity connection allegedly belonging to the petitioner. There are material in charge sheet that deceased was asked to repair the electricity connection taken to the water pump install in the agricultural land of the petitioner. While repairing the said connection, no 7 intimation was given to the Electricity Department. Hence, because of negligence act of petitioner deceased died due to electrocution. During investigation, statements of witnesses and technical reports were collected, and on the basis of material available, a charge sheet was filed under Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The contention of the petitioner that the incident occurred in another field and that the deceased never entered his field are factual issues requiring evidence, which cannot be adjudicated at this stage. The documents and maps relied upon by the petitioner are part of the prosecution record itself and can be appreciated only during trial. At the stage of cognizance, the Court is merely to see whether a prima facie case exists to proceed against the accused, not to weigh the sufÏciency or correctness of the evidence. 10. Accordingly, this Court finds that the FIR, charge sheet, and cognizance order dated 04.09.2025 suffer from no illegality or irregularity. There is sufÏcient material to proceed against the petitioner under Section 106(1) of the BNS and under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. Hence, the petition is dismissed, holding that no ground is made out for interference 8 under Section 528 BNSS. The trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib