1 2026:CGHC:20835-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1231 of 2026 1 - Ajay Agrawal S/o Late Tikaram Agrawal Aged About 54 Years R/o Prem Nagar, Rajgaamar Colony, Rajgaamar, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) 2 - The Superintendent Of Police Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) 3 - The Station House Officer Police Station- Balco Nagar, District Korba (C.G.) 4 - Sangeeta Yadav W/o Late Anil Yadav Aged About 38 Years R/o- Jivan Housing Board Colony, Industrial Area, Kharmora, Thana Civil Lines, Rampur, District- Korba (C.G.) .. Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 05/05/2026 1. Heard Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.05.07 10:45:33 +0530 2 for the Respondent/State. 2. Present is a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of the FIR No. 202/2025 dated 02.04.2025 registered at Police Station Balco Nagar, District Korba for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and the consequent Charge- Sheet No. 276/2025 dated 30.06.2025 as well as supplementary charge-sheet No. 276-A/2025 dated 23.09.2025 filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 238, 190, 191(1) of the B.N.S., 2023, and also for quashing of the order of committal dated 13.10.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba, and further for setting aside the order dated 18.11.2025 whereby charges have been framed and order dated 22.11.2025 whereby the application for discharge under Section 250 of the BNSS has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Korba, District Korba (C.G.), and prayed for the following reliefs: “(i) Quash (qua the Petitioner herein) the FIR No. 202/2025 dated 02.04.2025 registered initially against other co-accused persons at Police Station Balco Nagar (wrongly mentioned as Rajgaamar). District Korba initially for offence punishable under Sections 103(1),3(5) of B.N.S., 2023 and the Sheet No. consequent Final Report/Charge 276/2025 dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) and subsequent supplementary charge sheet No. 276-A/2025 dated 23.09.2025 filed against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 238, 190, 191(1) of B.N.S., 2023 (Annexure P-2). 3 (ii) Set-aside and/or quash (qua the Petitioner), all consequent criminal proceedings arising out of aforesaid FIR/Charge Sheet/supplementary charge sheet, particularly the criminal proceeding filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) including the committal order dated 13.10.2025 (forms part of Annexure P-3), whereby the learned Magistrate Courtcommitted the case to the Court of Sessions finding that in the instant case prima-facie offence under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 238, 190, 191(1) of B.N.S.. 2023 are made out against the petitioner herein. (iii) Set-aside and/or quash (qua the Petitioner), all the consequent criminal proceedings arising out of aforesaid FIR/Charge Sheet/supplementary charge sheet, particularly the Sessions Trial No.76/2025 [Annexure consideration P-4(Colly)1 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Korba, District Korba (C.G.) including the order framing charge & charges dated 18.11.2025 and the order dated 22.11.2025 whereby an application for discharge under Section 250 of BNSS has been rejected by the learned Trial Court below. (iv) Any other orders in favour of the petitioner may be passed as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Merg No. 34/2025 dated 14.03.2025 registered in connection with the death of one Anil Yadav, who, on the date of incident during Holi, had gone to Rajgamar and allegedly got into an altercation with co-accused Arpit Agrawal and his associates, who are stated to have assaulted him, as a result of which 4 he became unconscious and was later declared brought dead at the hospital; thereafter, a zero FIR was initially registered and subsequently numbered as FIR No. 202/2025 dated 02.04.2025 at Police Station Balco Nagar, District Korba for offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, and upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet No. 276/2025 dated 30.06.2025 was filed against the said accused persons, on which cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where Sessions Trial No. 76/2025 came to be registered; that during the pendency of the said trial, and after a lapse of about nine months from the date of incident, the petitioner herein was implicated for the first time on allegations of causing disappearance of evidence and was arrested on 17.09.2025, followed by filing of supplementary charge-sheet No. 276-A/2025 dated 23.09.2025 against him for offences under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 238, 190, 191(1) of the B.N.S., 2023, and thereafter, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 13.10.2025, charges were framed against the petitioner on 18.11.2025, and his application for discharge under Section 250 of the BNSS was rejected vide order dated 22.11.2025, leading to the filing of the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the present petition deserves to be allowed as the impugned FIR, charge-sheet, supplementary charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings are ex facie illegal, arbitrary and amount to abuse of the process of law, inasmuch as the petitioner has been falsely implicated without any 5 foundational material, it is submitted that the name of the petitioner does not find place either in the FIR or in the initial charge-sheet and has been introduced for the first time after an inordinate and unexplained delay of about nine months, merely because the co- accused happens to be his son and the place of incident is situated in front of his house, which itself reflects mala fide intention on the part of the investigating agency, the only allegation against the petitioner pertains to Section 238 of the B.N.S., however, there is absolutely no material on record to prima facie establish that the petitioner had caused disappearance of evidence or had given false information with the requisite knowledge or intention to screen the offender, and the entire case against him is based on vague, omnibus and general allegations without any specific overt act, it is further submitted that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken at its face value, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out against the petitioner and the uncontroverted allegations do not disclose commission of any offence, thereby bringing the case squarely within the parameters warranting interference to prevent abuse of process of Court; the belated implication and arrest of the petitioner during pendency of trial further demonstrate arbitrary and vindictive action on the part of the police authorities; continuation of such proceedings would cause grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the petitioner and would amount to permitting the criminal process to be used as a tool of harassment; hence, it is a fit case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the impugned proceedings in 6 the interest of justice. 5. 5. It is further vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the co-accused persons were charge-sheeted at an earlier point of time, whereas the petitioner has been implicated subsequently by way of a supplementary charge-sheet, and even as per the material collected during investigation and reflected therein, there is no evidence against the petitioner to connect him with the alleged offence. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-State would submit that the present petition is liable to be dismissed as the FIR, charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet clearly disclose commission of serious cognizable offences and prima facie material exists against the petitioner, particularly with regard to causing disappearance of evidence; it is submitted that the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of material collected during further investigation and merely because his name did not appear in the FIR or initial charge-sheet does not render the proceedings illegal, as the law permits filing of supplementary charge-sheet upon discovery of additional evidence. It is further submitted that the case has already reached an advanced stage inasmuch as investigation is complete, cognizance has been taken, the matter has been committed to the Court of Sessions, charges have been framed and even the application for discharge has been rejected, therefore, the present petition is nothing but an attempt to delay and obstruct the trial, at this stage, detailed appreciation of evidence is impermissible and the existence of 7 a prima facie case is sufficient to proceed, which is clearly made out against the petitioner, and therefore, no interference is warranted and the petition deserves to be dismissed. It is further submitted by learned State counsel that the trial is already in progress and statements of as many as 13 witnesses have been recorded, which have not been brought on record before this Court by the petitioner while seeking quashing of the proceedings. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. It is apparent that the FIR, charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet disclose prima facie commission of cognizable offences and sufficient material exists to proceed against the petitioner. The contention regarding delayed implication and absence of name in the FIR or initial charge-sheet cannot be examined in detail at this stage, particularly when such issues involve disputed questions of fact. It is also not in dispute that the case has progressed to an advanced stage inasmuch as charges have already been framed, the application for discharge has been rejected and the trial is in progress, wherein statements of several witnesses have already been recorded. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to quash or set aside the impugned proceedings at this stage, as the trial is already in progress. 9. In the matter of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in AIR Online 2021 SC 8 192, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 23 held as under :- “23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under: (i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; (ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; (iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; (iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). (v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; (vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; (vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; (viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from 9 usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; (ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; (x) Save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;” 10. In the present case, the petitioner is claiming that in the initial investigation, he was no where named nor any evidence appeared against him till filing of the charge-sheet and after long lapse of time the applicant has been arrested and supplementary charge-sheet has been filed against him. In the entire charge-sheet which has been filed on the first round nothing is there against him that he also participated in the offence or present on the spot. From the statement of the witness and cctv footage there is no involvement disclosed in the offence with respect to the petitioner whereas the learned counsel appearing for the State objected and submitted that from the statement of Kali @ Anchal Das, Abhay Chandra and Anuj Kurre, the present petitioner has been identified in the cctv footage available on the spot. The place of incident is in front of the house of the present petitioner and the son of the present petitioner namely Arpit Agrawal is also one of the accused. The allegation is against the petitioner is that in order to save the son he conceal the evidence and subsequently they shown that the deceased died due to road accident. The evidence is being recorded and the trial is at advance stage and 13 witnesses have been examined, therefore, at this stage the FIR, charge-sheet and the proceedings cannot be 10 quashed particularly, when the involvement of the present petitioner in the offence in question is under dispute which is factual in nature. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion and in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for interference is made out in exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS. The material placed on record prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offences and the matter is already at an advanced stage where the trial is in progress and 13 witnesses have been examined. The issues raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in these proceedings. 12. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to quash the impugned FIR, charge-sheet, supplementary charge-sheet or the consequential proceedings. The present petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok