1 2025:CGHC:56498-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3519 of 2025 Tarachand Sahu S/o Lalram Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Sursabandha, P.S. - Rajim, District Gariyaband (C.G.) (Accused) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Rajim, District - Gariyaband (C.G.) (Prosecution) 2 - Chetan Patel S/o Ishwar Patel Aged About 26 Years R/o Village - Kuruskera P.S. Rajim District - Gariyaband (C.G.) (Complainant) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Sunil Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate. 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: 2025.11.20 17:38:29 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 20.11.2025 1. Heard Shri Sunil Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Sangharsh Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. 2. The present Cr.M.P. has been filed with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that, may this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quashed the FIR bearing Crime no. 325/2024 registered before Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband (C.G.) dated 13.10.2024 for the offence punishable U/s 106(1) of BNS Act 2023, final report/charge-sheet which was filed on 18.12.2024 before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajim, District Raipur (C.G.), in Criminal Case No. 884 of 2024, cognizance taken on 04.08.2025 for the offence punishable U/s 106(1), 105 of BNS Act 2023 by the learned Upper Session Judge Gariyaband District Gariyaband (CG), and framing of charge dated 29.08.2025 in Session Trial No. 32 of 2025 for 3 offence punishable under Section 105, 106(1) of BNS Act 2023 by the learned Upper Session Judge Gariyaband District Gariyaband (CG) in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case is that on 12.10.2024, Aman Patel and his friend Chetan Patel were on a morning walk at village Sursabandha when Aman suddenly went missing. After repeated calls went unanswered, Chetan searched for him and found Aman lying dead, having come in contact with a live electric wire illegally fenced around the agricultural field of Yogesh Tiwari. Chetan immediately informed the police, and after inquest and postmortem, the doctor opined that the cause of death was cardiopulmonary arrest due to electric shock. During investigation, it was found that an agreement dated 10.12.2024 had been executed by Yogesh Tiwari in favour of the petitioner, showing that the land was allegedly taken on hire by the petitioner for cultivation. Based on this, offences under Sections 105 and 106(1) of the BNS Act were registered against the petitioner. A charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Rajim, in Criminal Case No. 884/2025, which was later committed to the Court 4 of the Upper Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, where Sessions Trial No. 32/2025 was registered. Cognizance was taken on 04.08.2025, and charges under Sections 105 and 106(1) of the BNS Act were framed against the Petitioner on 29.08.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, as the record clearly shows that he was not in possession of the land on the date of the incident. It is urged that neither the morgue intimation, the inquest proceedings, statements of villagers, nor the FIR contain even a whisper implicating the applicant, and throughout the initial investigation no material surfaced suggesting that the land was taken on hire by him. Counsel further points out that only after two months, on 10.12.2024, the landowner Yogesh Tiwari produced an agreement evidently an afterthought and in his notice reply under Section 94 BNSS he claimed to have learnt of the incident 15–20 days later, despite residing in the same village. It is also emphasized that the Assistant Engineer’s report dated 27.01.2025 confirms that no electric wire or illegal connection was found at the spot. Thus, even 5 accepting the charge-sheet as it stands, the prosecution appears to be shielding Yogesh Tiwari and has wrongly implicated the applicant without any legal or factual basis. 5. Learned State Counsel opposes the petition submitting that the charge-sheet discloses sufÏcient material to proceed against the petitioner, including the agreement showing his possession of the land, and the matter has already reached the stage of framing of charges after due judicial scrutiny. It is argued that the death occurred due to an electric fence on the land allegedly taken by the petitioner, and all objections raise regarding the timing of the agreement, statements of witnesses, or absence of wiring are factual issues to be tested during trial, not grounds for quashment. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the charge-sheet, this Court finds that the material collected during investigation, including the agreement indicating possession of the land by the petitioner and the circumstances surrounding the electrocution leading to the death of the deceased, disclose a prima facie case sufÏcient 6 to proceed to trial. The inconsistencies or doubts pointed out by the petitioner relating to the timing of the agreement, the statements of witnesses, or the alleged absence of electric wiring are matters requiring appreciation of evidence, which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. 8. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that at this stage the Court is not expected to conduct a meticulous evaluation of evidence or examine the defence of the accused (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460; Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 6 SCC 733). Since cognizance has already been taken and charges have been framed by the learned Sessions Court after due application of mind, no ground is made out to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction for quashing the proceedings. 9. Accordingly, the CRMP stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib