1 2026:CGHC:7293-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1477 of 2024 Mejar Singh S/o Shri Surindar Singh, Aged About 53 Years R/o C.H. 144 Veer Sawarkar Nagar, Hirapur, Tatibandh, Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattiagarh. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Superintendent Of Police District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Station House Officer, Police Station Dharsiva, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - S.K.A. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Company, Siltara, Through Aakash Agrawal S/o Late Kaushal Kishore Agrawal, Aged About 20 Years, R/o C-402, Harshti Tower, Panchdham Mandir, Tatibandh, Amanaka, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Amrit Singh, Owner Of Khalsa Trailor Services, Office At Shop No6, Bhardhwaj Complex, Transport Nagar, Rawabhata, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Dilbaag Singh, An Agent Of Amrit Singh, Office At Shop No6, Bhardhwaj Complex, Transport Nagar, Rawabhata, Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.02.11 19:14:10 +0530 2 CRMP No. 1469 of 2024 Gurvinder Singh Bhatti S/o Late Sardar Sadha Singh Bhatti Aged About 47 Years R/o 62, Kharun Green Colony, Kumahari, Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Superintendent Of Police, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Station House Officer Police Station Dharsiva, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - S.K.A. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Company Siltara Through Aakash Agrawal, S/o Late Kaushal Kishore Agrawal, Aged About 20 Years, R/o C-402, Harshit Tower, Panchdham Mandir, Tatibandh, Amanaka, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Amrit Singh @ Amrit Pal Singh Owner Of Khalsa Trailor Services, Office At Shop No.6, Bhardhwaj Complex, Transport Nagar, Rawabhata, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Dilbaag Singh At Agent Of Amrit Singh Office At Shop No. 6, Bhardhwaj Complex, Transport Nagar, Rawabhata, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raza Ali, along with Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N. K. Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Harsh Dav, on behalf of Mr. Nikhil Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 5 Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10/02/2026 3 1. Heard Mr. Raza Ali, along with Mr. Ankur Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. K. Jaiswal, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, appearing for Respondent/State, Mr. Harsh Dave, appearing on behalf of Mr. Nikhil Agrawal, learned counsel for the Respondent No.3, Mr. Virendra Verma, learned counsel for the Respondent No.5. 2. It transpires from the office report that in compliance of the order dated 28.06.2024 notice issued to the Respondent No.4 has been returned unserved as he is not living in his given address. 3. Both the CRMPs have been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer : “It is therefore most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to the case from the respondent no.2 police station, quash the FIR No.263/2024 against the petitioner registered at police station Dharsiva, as it is false and made with ulterior motive and further direct the police authorities to take action against the respondent no.3 to 5 or pass any other order which may deem fit to this Hon'ble Court looking to the facts and circumstance of the matter, in the interest of justice.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, engaged in the business of transportation with Punjab Cargo Movers, has been falsely implicated in FIR No. 263/2024 registered under Sections 407 and 34 IPC on the allegation that certain consignments of iron rods were not 4 delivered to their intended destinations. The petitioners submits that no transportation order was ever placed by the complainant with him; rather, he was engaged by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 only for transporting 50 tons of iron rods from S.K.A. Ispat to Lift & Shift, Raipur, for temporary dumping and cross-forwarding, which assignment was duly completed and for which he received payment. The material was unloaded and later reloaded by Respondent No. 4 at Lift & Shift, as reflected in documentary evidence. It is contended that any alleged non-delivery pertains to Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, and the petitioners have been maliciously implicated with an ulterior motive to recover alleged losses, despite having no role beyond the limited transportation assignment performed by them. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR has been registered in an arbitrary and illegal manner without proper enquiry and despite clear documentary evidence showing that the petitioners had merely transported the goods from S.K.A. Ispat, Raipur to Lift & Shift, Raipur under the instructions of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and had duly completed the limited assignment for which he received lawful payment. The complainant had not placed any work order with the petitioners, and no criminal act or dishonest intention can be attributed to him. The essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out, and the complaint has been filed only with an ulterior motive to recover alleged losses from the petitioners, while the real culprits, namely Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, have not been properly proceeded against. Despite seizure of the material and submission of 5 relevant documents, the police authorities have failed to conduct a fair investigation, have not supplied documents sought under RTI, and are acting in a biased manner, thereby violating the petitioner’s fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts to abuse of the process of law and deserves to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the impugned FIR has been registered strictly in accordance with law on the basis of specific and cognizable allegations disclosing commission of offences under Sections 407 and 34 IPC. The FIR clearly alleges that the consignments of iron rods entrusted for transportation were not delivered to their intended destinations, thereby constituting criminal breach of trust by carrier. The role of the petitioners has emerged during the course of investigation, as the goods were transported through vehicles under his control, and therefore his involvement cannot be ruled out at this stage. The defence sought to be raised by the petitioners regarding alleged instructions from Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, payment of charges, or unloading at Lift & Shift, Raipur, are all matters of evidence which require thorough investigation and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the investigation is at a crucial stage, material evidence has been collected, and seizure of goods has been effected; hence, interference by this Hon’ble Court would amount 6 to stifling a legitimate prosecution. The allegations cannot be said to be absurd or inherently improbable at this stage, and the petition is an attempt to prematurely scuttle the investigation. Therefore, the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 would submit that the present petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed, as the FIR was lodged bona fide upon discovery that 40.07 tons of iron rods entrusted for transportation from Raipur (C.G.) to Bardhaman, West Bengal were not delivered to the designated destination. The Bilty Nos. 16 and 17 dated 21.03.2024 clearly mentioned Lorry No. PB-06-AG- 1414 for transportation of the goods, which admittedly belongs to the petitioners, thereby fastening responsibility upon him as the carrier. Respondent No. 3 had entered into an agreement with Respondent No. 4 for transportation and had no knowledge of any internal arrangement between the petitioners and Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The complaint was supported by relevant invoices, e-way bills, weighment slips and other documents, and was filed only after the goods were not delivered as agreed. The allegations of mala fide intention, conspiracy, or abuse of process are emphatically denied, as the FIR was registered on the basis of specific and cognizable allegations disclosing commission of offences under Sections 407 and 34 IPC. The defences sought to be raised by the petitioners involve disputed questions of fact which require investigation and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, both the petitions deserve to be dismissed with costs. 7 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petitions. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Sharma and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2016) 9 SCC 1 held as under:- “35. While discussing the scope and ambit of Section482 of the Code, a similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Kal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 wherein it was held as under:- “29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the 8 prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC: 30.1 Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2 Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? 30.3 Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4 Step four: whether proceeding with the trial 9 would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 9. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the material placed on record, this Court finds that the allegations made in the impugned FIR, even if taken at their face value, do not prima facie disclose the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 407 IPC against the petitioners. The documents annexed with the petitions indicate that the petitioners had only undertaken limited transportation of goods from S.K.A. Ispat, Raipur to Lift & Shift, Raipur under the instructions of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, and there is no material to show entrustment of the goods by Respondent No. 3 directly to the petitioners for delivery at the alleged destination. The dispute appears to arise out of contractual arrangements between the parties, and the role attributed to the petitioners are founded on assumptions rather than specific allegations of dishonest intention or misappropriation. In such circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the petitions deserve to be allowed and the impugned FIR, so far as it relates to the petitioners, is liable to be quashed. 10 10. Accordingly, the FIR bearing No. 263 of 2024, registered at Police Station Dharsiva, District Raipur, for the offence punishable under Sections 407 and 34 of the IPC, insofar as it relates to the petitioner Mejar Singh in CRMP No. 1477 of 2024 and the petitioner Gurvinder Singh Bhatti in CRMP No. 1469 of 2024, is hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok