1 2026:CGHC:5629-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 322 of 2026 Rajendra Prasad Yadav S/o Shri Anand Ram Yadav Aged About 51 Years Occupation Journalist At Nav Bharat Daily News Paper Saraypali, R/o Ward No. 13 Post Office Street Saraypali, Thana And Tehsil- Saraypali, District- Mahasamund C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Superintendent Of Police Mahasamund, District Mahasamund C.G. 3 - Station House Officer, P.S. Saraypali, District Mahasamund C.G. 4 - Loknath Patel S/o Shri Basant Kumar Patel R/o Yashoda Kunj Basti Saraypali, Thana And Tehsil- Saraypali, District Mahasamund C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.02.02 16:19:47 +0530 2 02.02.2026 1. Heard Dr. Arham Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate for respondent / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “A. That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to produce the entire record pertaining to the case of applicant. B. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the (F.I.R.) dated 10/01/2023 in Crime No: 0025/2023 registered by Police Station Saraypali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for alleged commission of offences under section 341, 384 & 395 of Indian Penal Code and final report dated 20/07/2023 under section 341, 384 & 395 of Indian Penal Code. C. That, The Learned Trial Court after filing of the final report took cognizance dated 02/09/2023 and have further proceeded in framing of charge dated 09/01/2025 passed by the Ld Second Additional Sessions Judge Saraypali, Mahasamund under sections 341, 384 & 395 of Indian Panel Code in Sessions case no. 46/2023. D. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 02/09/2023 and 09/01/2025 passed by the Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge Saraypali, Mahasamund wherein charges have been framed under sections 341, 384 & 395 of Indian Panel 3 Code and all consequent criminal proceedings pertaining to case no. 46/2023 pending before Ld Second Additional Sessions Judge Saraypali, Mahasamund in light of justice and equity. E. That this Hon'ble court may further be pleased to pass any other order in favour of Petitioner as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost.” 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this case are that the present case arises out of a written complaint lodged by respondent No. 4 before respondent No. 3 on 10.01.2023, alleging that on 03.01.2023 at about 4:00 PM, while the complainant was driving a sand-laden Hyva truck, two cars intercepted his vehicle near Pilhidih turning, whereupon the applicant along with his alleged accomplices boarded the vehicle, searched it and forcibly took away Rs.21,400 from the complainant’s purse and allegedly demanded an additional amount of Rs.30,000 to avoid taking the vehicle to the Police Station. It was further alleged that thereafter the accused returned the empty purse and other belongings and left the spot, but later again came near a construction site where the complainant was dumping sand and took photographs and videos of the vehicle. During investigation, the petitioner and one Ashok Kumar Yadav were arrested and subsequently released on bail. However, material contradictions surfaced as the cleaner of the vehicle, Lochan Chaudhary, in his statement annexed with the chargesheet, stated that only two persons in a red-coloured car 4 were present at both the alleged incidents, whereas the complainant alleged involvement of five persons travelling in two different cars, i.e., one red and one white/silver. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and charges were framed against the accused persons. The petitioner had earlier filed CRMP No. 147/2023 before this Court challenging the FIR, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty vide order dated 17.09.2025 after filing of the charge-sheet and framing of charges. The petitioner asserts that he is a journalist associated with Navbharat News Agency and on the relevant date had noticed illegal transportation of sand without permit in the said Hyva truck, which was being used at a Government construction site, and despite the presence of local authorities the vehicle was allowed to pass unchecked. The petitioner immediately informed the concerned authorities, and the said incident was published in the Navbharat newspaper on 05.01.2023 along with photographs. Subsequent thereto, on 10.01.2023, the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 25/2023 was lodged at Police Station- Saraypali, District- Mahasamund, allegedly as a counterblast to the said news report, leading to the arrest of the applicant on 25.04.2023, who was later granted bail by this Court vide order dated 28.07.2023. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders dated 02.09.2023 and 09.01.2025 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Saraypali, Mahasamund are 5 bad in law and on facts and are liable to be set aside, as no prima facie case under Sections 341, 384 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the applicant. It is contended that the FIR has been lodged with mala fide intention merely to harass and pressurize the applicant for exposing the illegal mining and transportation of sand by respondent No. 4 through publication of a news report. The complainant has taken inconsistent stands, as while he alleged involvement of five persons in two vehicles, the cleaner of the vehicle has categorically stated that only two persons were present at the spot, thereby demolishing the allegation of dacoity. It is further submitted that the investigation itself is tainted and arbitrary inasmuch as one of the co-accused, namely Patwari Umit Patel, who is admittedly an accused in the same crime, was utilised by the police for preparation of the site map, rendering the entire investigation doubtful. The police, without assigning any cogent reason, have filed the final report against only two accused persons while leaving out the remaining alleged co-accused, despite a delay of seven months in filing the charge-sheet. It is also argued that although the complainant alleged involvement of a white-coloured SUV, the police selectively seized only one vehicle and deliberately failed to investigate or seize the illegal sand-laden Hyva truck even after publication of the news article dated 05.01.2023. The FIR itself does not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences and appears to be false, frivolous and lodged after an unexplained 6 delay of seven days, clearly indicating that it is a well-planned counterblast. 5. Learned Counsel further submits that during trial, two prosecution witnesses examined so far have not supported the case of the prosecution. No Test Identification Parade was conducted to establish the presence of five accused persons. Even the trial court had noted in its order sheet dated 26.03.2025 that repeated concerns were raised regarding Section 395 IPC and had directed the prosecution and police to verify the actual factual position, but no action has been taken till date. It is thus submitted that at the stage of framing of charge under Sections 227/228 Cr.P.C., the learned Court failed to properly evaluate the material on record and even if the prosecution case is accepted at its face value, no offence is made out, and continuation of the proceedings would amount to sheer abuse of process of law, warranting discharge of the applicant and quashing of the impugned orders. 6. Learned State counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 20.07.2023 in Crime No. 0025/2023 against the petitioner under the charges of Section 341, 384 & 395 of the IPC along with order of cognizance dated 02.09.2023 and order framing charge dated 09.01.2025 and submits that since the charge-sheet has already been filed, charges have already been framed and trial has started at the stage of deposition, this petition has virtually become infructuous 7 and as such, the same may be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 8. Considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the charge-sheet in Crime No. 0025/2023 has already been filed, cognizance has been taken, charges under Sections 341, 384 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code have been framed and the trial has commenced and is presently at the stage of recording of evidence. At this advanced stage of the proceedings, this Court does not find any exceptional or compelling circumstance warranting exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to quash the charge-sheet or the orders of cognizance and framing of charge. The issues raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and are required to be tested during trial. 9. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet