1 2026:CGHC:10927-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 519 of 2026 Ayush Kumar Singh S/o Shankar Prasad Singh Aged About 31 Years (Different/ Wrongly Mentioned In Fir, Challan And Criminal Proceeding As Ayush @ Monti Singh Rajput), R/o House No. 333, Banki Mongra, District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent Of Police Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 3 - Station House Officer Police Station Civil Line Rampur, District Korba (C.G.) 4 - Prabhat Yadav S/o Chitrabhan Yadav R/o Village Kharmora, Police Station Civil Line, Rampur, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soubrah Sahu, Panel Lawyer MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.03.03 15:35:00 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03.03.2026 1. Heard Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR bearing No. 296/2025 registered on dated 17.05.2025 at Police Station Civil Line, Rampur, District Korba, Chhattisgarh filed under section 109, 3 (5) of B.N.S. and quash the charge sheet filed on 29.07.2025 and entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No. 5633/2025 pending before learned 3-1 Civil Judge Sr. Division and Chief Judicial Magistrate Korba Chhattisgarh in commission of offence under section 109, 3(5) of B.N.S. against the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 16.05.2025 at about 11:15 p.m., near Bhagwat Nagar, Podibahar, when the complainant along with his brother Pramod Yadav was conversing with his friend Vikrant Sahu, the juvenile co-accused Muni Tripathi and the present petitioner Monty allegedly reached the spot due to an old 3 enmity and started assaulting Pramod Yadav. During the scuffle, it is alleged that the juvenile, armed with a button knife and holding a mobile phone in his other hand, stabbed Pramod Yadav repeatedly with an intention to kill him, causing injuries on his stomach, chest, waist, face and hands. When the complainant intervened to rescue his brother, he too was allegedly assaulted, sustaining injury on one of his fingers. On the basis of the said incident, an offence under Sections 109 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. has been registered against the petitioner at Police Station Civil Lines, Rampur, District Korba (C.G.). After completion of investigation, the police have filed the charge-sheet before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba, where it has been registered as Criminal Case No. 5633/2025 and the trial is presently pending against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in implicating the petitioner is wholly illegal, erroneous, discriminatory and contrary to settled principles of law. It is contended that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to previous enmity between the complainant party and the juvenile co-accused. In fact, as per the petitioner, the complainant along with several other persons had restrained and quarreled with the juvenile on account of old rivalry, and the present petitioner had already left the spot and played no role whatsoever in the alleged incident, nor does he have any connection or association with the said juvenile. It is further 4 argued that the alleged button knife has been seized exclusively from the possession of the juvenile co-accused, who has already been granted bail by the competent Court, and no incriminating article has been recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and that the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature, which do not attract the ingredients of Section 109 of the B.N.S., 2023, and there is no substantive material available on record to establish any overt act or common intention on his part. It is also contended that the complainant has levelled bald and omnibus allegations on the basis of alleged prior enmity without disclosing the nature or genesis of such dispute, and the petitioner has been roped in merely on the basis of memorandum statements without any independent corroboration. The petitioner neither had any dispute with the injured nor caused any injury to him, and the entire prosecution story is a concocted and fabricated version built upon false and baseless allegations. It is thus submitted that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken at its face value, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and no offence is attracted against him as alleged. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR and is an active participant in the incident in question. It is contended that the statements of the complainant and other witnesses recorded during investigation clearly disclose the 5 presence and involvement of the petitioner in assaulting the injured along with the co-accused, and the role attributed to him cannot be brushed aside at this stage. Learned counsel submits that the incident occurred on account of previous enmity and the petitioner shared common intention with the co-accused, thereby attracting the relevant provisions of the B.N.S., 2023. It is further argued that the charge-sheet has already been filed after due investigation and sufficient material has been collected to proceed with the trial. Therefore, this is not a fit case for interference, as disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings and the matter requires full-fledged trial. 6. Learned State counsel further submits that a bare perusal of the FIR would go to show that the present petitioner has been specifically named therein and a clear role has been attributed to him in assaulting the injured along with the co-accused. The FIR discloses that the petitioner, in furtherance of previous enmity and common intention, actively participated in the incident and facilitated the assault committed upon the victim. The allegations are not vague or omnibus but disclose his presence, participation and complicity in the commission of the offence, thereby prima facie attracting the relevant provisions of the B.N.S., 2023 and justifying continuation of the proceedings against him. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 8. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the 6 FIR, case diary material and the charge-sheet filed before the competent Court, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie sufficient material exists against the present petitioner to proceed with the trial. The allegations in the FIR cannot be said to be inherently improbable or absurd at this stage, and the petitioner has been specifically named with an attributed role in the incident. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner pertain to disputed questions of fact, which require appreciation of evidence and cannot be adjudicated in these proceedings. It is settled law that at this stage, meticulous examination of evidence is impermissible. Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground warranting interference, and the petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet