1 2026:CGHC:8759-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 535 of 2026 Md. Junaid @ Md. Junaidraza Chauhan S/o Yusuf Chauhan Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Raza Colony, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Nagar, Nayapara, Rajim, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Akbar Solanki S/o Nijamuddin Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Behind Ayushman Hospital, Nayapara, P.S. Gobaranawapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 19.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short, ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the petitioner seeking following prayer :- ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 “I. To kindly quash the FIR No. 246/2023, dated 23/07/2023, registered at Police Station Rajim, Gariyanand, (C.G.). [ANNEXURE A/1] II. To kindly quash the impugned final report bearing no. 242/2023 dated 09/09/2023, in crime no. 246/2023 filed against the Petitioner under section 420 of I.P.C.. [ANNEXURE A/4] III. To kindly quash the impugned order dated 19/07/2024 whereby the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajim, Dist-Gariyaband has taken cognizance of the impugned chargesheet and registered the impugned criminal proceedings as criminal case no. 740/2024 against the Petitioner. [ANNEXURE A/5] IV. To pass such other orders as it may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioners against the respondent.” 3. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 28 February 2023, the complainant, Manrakhan Dewangan, lodged a report stating that on the said date, after returning home from his place of work, he came to know through neighboring residents that his son-in-law, Chiteshwar Dewangan, who had been residing at his house for a few days, had proceeded towards Pitaiband along with his son, Riju alias Shekhar Dewangan and while they were returning, near Amapara, in front of the house of Vinod Sonkar, a truck bearing registration number CG04-CW-1184, coming from the direction of Pitaiband and being driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, struck them from behind, thereby causing a 3 fatal accident. Both injured persons were removed to the Government Hospital, Rajim, by a 108 ambulance, where they were declared dead at CHC Rajim. On the basis of the aforesaid report, Crime No. 78/2023 under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Rajim Police Station, and the investigation was set in motion. 4. During the course of investigation, the statements of the complainant and other material witnesses were recorded. The motorcycle of the deceased, a Bajaj Platina bearing registration number CG05-AJ-5927, and the truck bearing registration number CG04-CW-1184 were seized at the spot from the driver, Ravikumar Yadav and information pertaining to the seized truck was obtained from the concerned Regional Transport Office (RTO), and a notice under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued to the registered owner, Akbar Solanki, who stated that he had sold the said vehicle approximately six months prior to the incident and that the number plate of the vehicle was being misused by an unknown person. Thereafter, a physical verification of the seized truck was conducted by a qualified vehicle surveyor, who submitted a report indicating that the chassis number of the vehicle had been tampered with. During the investigation, the statements of the driver Ravikumar Yadav and the welding shop owner Mohd. Yaqub Solanki were recorded, wherein they disclosed that the vehicle belonged to the Petitioner. 4 5. Investigation further revealed that Akbar Solanki had failed to intimate the District Transport Office regarding the disposal of the said truck. On the basis of statements of the witnesses and the tampering of the chassis number of the seized vehicle, a separate case, being Crime No. 246/2023 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at Rajim Police Station against the Petitioner, who was allegedly using the said truck for transportation purposes. During the investigation, it was also found that the owner had permitted a driver without a valid driving licence to operate the vehicle and that the vehicle did not possess valid insurance and fitness certificates. Consequently, Sections 3/181, 5/180, 56/192, 66/192 and 50/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act were added. 6. Upon completion of the investigation and upon finding sufficient material against the accused under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and Section 3/181, 5/180, 56/192, 66/192 and 50/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Charge-sheet No. 241/2023 dated 09.09.2023 was prepared and filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajim, Dist-Gariyaband, who has taken cognizance of the impugned chargesheets vide order dated 11/12/2023. Hence, this petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated on mere conjectures and surmises, and that even if the entire charge-sheet material is taken at face value, 5 no cognizable offence is made out against him. It is evident from the prosecution’s own case that the truck bearing registration No. CG04-CW-1184 was registered in the name of Akbar Solanki, who allegedly sold it to Mohd. Athar Rizvi, and thereafter the vehicle was scrapped. The petitioner was never recorded as the owner in the official Transport Department records, nor is there any lawful transfer shown in his favour. In absence of ownership or lawful possession, fastening criminal liability upon the petitioner is wholly untenable. The prosecution case is further riddled with contradictions, as the driver has given multiple inconsistent statements on stamp papers, each narrating a different version. The alleged Iqarnama and stamp papers do not even disclose particulars of the seller or purchaser, and the concerned Notary has admitted that material details were not entered in his register, rendering such documents unreliable 8. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the essential ingredient of mens rea, indispensable for an offence under Section 420 IPC, is conspicuously absent, as there is no material to show any dishonest intention at the inception of the alleged transaction. The petitioner duly responded to notices issued under Section 91 CrPC in Crime Nos. 78/2023 and 246/2023, denying any involvement; however, a subsequent notice bearing a purported signature of the petitioner, which he never signed, raises serious doubts of fabrication, evident from glaring differences in signatures. The petitioner has already been 6 granted bail in both cases and has been exonerated in the compensation proceedings, demonstrating the fragility of the prosecution case. The record indicates that the petitioner has been made a scapegoat to shield the actual offenders, and the continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law, warranting quashment. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the present petition seeking quashment of proceedings is misconceived and premature. It is contended that the charge- sheet discloses specific material connecting the petitioner with the alleged transaction, and at this stage, the Court is not required to meticulously examine contradictions or conduct a mini-trial. The prosecution case, as reflected in the statements of witnesses and documentary material collected during investigation, prima facie indicates the petitioner’s involvement in the transaction concerning the vehicle in question. Issues relating to ownership, transfer, validity of documents, or inconsistencies in statements are matters of evidence, which can only be adjudicated during trial upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. It is further submitted that the existence or absence of mens rea is a question of fact to be established on the basis of evidence led before the trial Court, and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The grant of bail or exoneration in compensation proceedings does not absolve the petitioner of 7 criminal liability, as the standard of proof in criminal prosecution is distinct. The allegations regarding fabrication of notices and disputed signatures also require evidentiary examination and cannot be decided in summary jurisdiction. The prosecution has collected sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner, and the continuation of trial does not amount to abuse of process of law. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the charge-sheet discloses prima facie material connecting the petitioner with the alleged transaction relating to the vehicle in question. The submissions advanced by the petitioner with regard to absence of ownership, inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses, defects in the alleged Iqarnama and notarial entries, and absence of mens rea are all matters which require appreciation of evidence. At this stage, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (now 528 BNS), this Court is not expected to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence or adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact. If the allegations contained in the charge-sheet are taken at their face value, they cannot be said to be so inherently improbable or absurd as to warrant quashment of the proceedings. 11. The grant of bail or exoneration in compensation proceedings does not ipso facto render the criminal prosecution unsustainable. 8 The plea regarding alleged fabrication of signatures and manipulation of records also involves factual determination which can appropriately be examined during trial. 12. In view of the material collected during investigation and the settled principles governing interference at the stage of quashment, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for exercise of inherent powers is made out. 13. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra