1 2026:CGHC:2370-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 148 of 2026 Sourabh Singh Alias Saurbh Singh S/o A.K. Singh Aged About 35 Years (Proprietor Of Om Sai Construction And Supplier) R/o Shiva Kripa Plot No. 142/124, Pahirawa Boutique Road, Behind Jila Chikitsalaya, Vidyut Nagar, Tehsil And District - Durg ... Petitioner versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Sanaud, District - Balod Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 15.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition with the following relief :- ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.01.15 17:05:02 +0530 2 “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition and quash/set-aside the impugned FIR No. 0045/2025 registered on dated 09.06.2025 at P.S Sanauad for the offence u/s 106 (1) of B.N.S. 2023, the cognizance order passed by learned JMFC, Balod (C.G.)on dated 04.11.2025 and the entire criminal proceeding (Criminal Case No. 2382/2025) initiated against the petitioners pursuant to FIR No. 0045/2025 and charge sheet, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that on 07.06.2025, the police conducted inquest proceedings after examining witnesses namely Satanand Nishad, Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Bikhari Lal Nishad, Sunil Kumar Nishad and Nemichand Sewta. As per the inquest report dated 07.06.2025 at about 04:00 PM, the deceased Yugal Kishore, while fitting an insulator on a forepin and descending from the electric pole, met with an accident when the PCC pole tilted and broke from about six inches above the ground, falling over him. The deceased sustained severe waist injuries and subsequently succumbed. The prosecution alleged that the incident occurred due to supply of sub-standard material by the contractor/petitioner and further alleged failure on the part of the supervisor, Kishore Kumar, to provide safety tools. The Marg intimation/inquest report No. 09/2025 prepared under Section 194 of BNSS records the cause of death as injury caused by the fall of an electric pole over the deceased at Dandesra Khar, 3 CHC Gurur, District Balod, at about 05:45 PM. The deceased was aged 29 years and the death was stated to be premature and untimely. 4. On the basis of the said incident, FIR No. 0045/2025 was registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (earlier Section 304-A IPC). A charge-sheet was filed and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balod took cognizance on 04.11.2025. The petitioner received show cause notices dated 01.10.2025 and 28.10.2025 issued by the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL). In reply, the petitioner stated that he has been working as a contractor for the past eight years through his registered firm Om Sai Contractor & Supplier and that PCC poles can be procured only from CSPDCL-approved vendors. The pole in question was purchased from an approved vendor, Shri Bihari Enterprises, Durg, on 22.05.2025. It was specifically averred that the pole failed due to compromised quality supplied by the approved vendor, which resulted in the fatal accident. Shri Bihari Enterprises supplied 8-meter, 140 kg PCC poles under GST Invoice No. SBE/112 dated 22.05.2025 without furnishing any quality/testing report, despite such report being mandatory under CSPDCL terms and conditions. 5. During investigation, a concrete core sample of the broken PCC pole was tested by Marshal Geo Test Laboratory (LLP), Raipur. 4 The test report dated 19.06.2025 revealed that though the specified grade was M-40, the average grade of the sample was only M-21.65, which was substantially below the prescribed standard. The petitioner has already deposited a sum of ₹10,91,584/- before the Labour Commissioner, Durg, under Section 8(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. In Case No. 39/EC Act/2025, the Labour Commissioner, by order dated 17.11.2025, directed disbursement of the said amount to the dependents of the deceased. 6. Mr. Sandeep Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR No. 0045/2025 is frivolous, vague, misconceived and not sustainable in the eyes of law and, therefore, deserves to be quashed. It is submitted that there is no material on record to establish any proximate, direct or foreseeable negligence on the part of the petitioner. Mere occurrence of an accident at the worksite does not automatically fasten criminal liability upon the contractor, in absence of proof that the petitioner’s act was the causa causans of the death. Reliance is placed upon the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 2356 of 2024, decided on 07.03.2025), wherein it has been categorically held that mere absence of safety gear or a general allegation of negligence is insufficient to attract criminal liability under Sections 304-A IPC / 106(1) BNS unless reckless and direct negligence is established. 5 7. Mr. Jha further submitted that the petitioner was compelled to procure PCC poles only from CSPDCL-approved vendors and, accordingly, the pole in question was purchased from Shri Bihari Enterprises, an approved vendor of CSPDCL. The petitioner neither manufactured the PCC pole nor had any role in determining its material composition or strength. Subsequent laboratory testing clearly revealed that although the prescribed standard was M-40, the pole strength was substantially lower (around M-21.65 / M-24.98 N/mm²), which clearly indicates supply of defective and sub-standard material by the approved vendor. No quality testing report was supplied along with the GST invoice, in blatant violation of CSPDCL’s own terms and conditions, and no fault can be attributed to the petitioner for the same. 8. Mr. Jha also submits that CSPDCL itself failed to undertake quality inspection at the time of supply, as the approved vendor did not raise any inspection call, which is the real and proximate cause of the unfortunate incident. Despite this, the manufacturer/approved vendor of the PCC pole has not been arrayed as an accused, even though product liability squarely lies upon the supplier/manufacturer where the product is inherently defective. Such liability extends even in the absence of privity of contract, particularly when the end-user (the deceased labourer) suffered fatal consequences. 9. It is contended by Mr. Jha that the entire charge-sheet proceeds 6 on an erroneous premise that the petitioner “supplied” the defective pole, whereas in reality he merely procured the same from an approved vendor for execution of Work Order No. 763 dated 08.08.2025. A bare perusal of the charge-sheet further reveals that the witness statements are verbatim and identical, reflecting serious procedural irregularities and rendering their evidentiary value highly doubtful. 10. It is further contended by Mr. Jha that the petitioner has already discharged his statutory obligation under the Employees’ Compensation Act by depositing a sum of ₹10,91,584/- before the Learned Labour Commissioner, Durg, which has been ordered to be disbursed to the dependents of the deceased. This clearly demonstrates absence of any mens rea, recklessness or criminal intent attributable to the petitioner. 11. It is argued by Mr. Jha that the charge-sheet, FIR and accompanying materials completely fail to disclose the essential ingredients of negligence, actus reus or mens rea so as to constitute an offence under Section 106(1) of BNS. No specific evidence has been brought on record to show that the petitioner alone was responsible for the defective PCC pole or that his actions directly resulted in the death of the deceased. 12. Lastly, learned counsel places reliance upon the celebrated judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and submits that the 7 present case squarely falls within the parameters laid down therein. The criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides, initiated with an ulterior motive, and are nothing but an abuse of the process of law. If the FIR, cognizance order and consequent criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2382/2025 are not quashed at this stage, the petitioner would be subjected to unwarranted hardship, which is wholly unsustainable in law. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that 14. On the other hand, Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent, opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the impugned FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings are legally justified and based on cogent material collected during investigation. It is contended that the death of the deceased occurred during execution of official work under the supervision and control of the petitioner–contractor, who was responsible for ensuring supply of safe and standard material as well as for providing adequate safety measures at the worksite. 15. Mr. Rathi further submits that the incident, resulting in the collapse of the PCC pole over the deceased labourer, prima facie establishes negligence attributable to the petitioner, thereby 8 attracting the offence under Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Merely stating that the PCC pole was purchased from an approved vendor does not absolve the petitioner of his statutory and contractual duty of care towards the labourers engaged by him. It was incumbent upon the petitioner, as the executing contractor, to ensure that the material used was of requisite quality and strength and that necessary safety equipment was provided. Failure to do so constitutes criminal negligence, which can be examined only during trial and not at the stage of quashing. 16. It is argued by Mr. Rathi that the laboratory test report categorically establishes that the strength of the PCC pole was much below the prescribed standard, and such sub-standard material was admittedly used at the worksite under the petitioner’s control. The chain of circumstances clearly discloses a prima facie case linking the petitioner’s acts and omissions with the accidental death of the deceased, and therefore the ingredients of Section 106(1) BNS are duly satisfied. He further submits that the question as to whether the approved vendor or manufacturer is also liable is a matter of evidence and does not dilute the petitioner’s responsibility. At this stage, the Court is only required to see whether the allegations in the FIR and the material collected disclose commission of a cognizable offence, which they clearly do. 9 17. It is submitted by Mr. Rathi that the alleged similarity of witness statements or the defence of having paid compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act are matters of defence and mitigation, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. Such defences must be tested during a full- fledged trial. Placing reliance on settled principles of law, learned Government Advocate submits that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash criminal proceedings is to be exercised sparingly and with great circumspection. As such, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 18. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and have carefully perused the documents annexed with the present petition. 19. From perusal of the FIR, it transpires that upon receipt of information regarding the accidental death of the deceased, Yugal Kishore, inquest proceedings were initiated initially without a registered case number and subsequently Marg Intimation No. 09/2025 under Section 194 BNSS was registered. During the inquest and spot inspection, the police examined and recorded statements of the panch and eyewitnesses, namely Satanand Nishad, Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Bhikhari Lal Nishad, Sunil Kumar Nishad and Nemichand Sevata. 20. The FIR discloses that on 07.06.2025 at about 04:00 PM, the deceased, while performing electric line work by fixing an insulator 10 and hanging the electric wire on the pole, had descended a few feet when the PCC electric pole allegedly bent, broke from about six inches above the ground and fell over him, crushing his waist, as a result of which he succumbed to injuries during treatment. 21. It is further reflected in the FIR that the police attributed the cause of the accident to alleged failure of the contractor, Saurabh Singh, in providing proper quality electric poles and to alleged negligence of the supervisor, Kishore Kumar Sahu, in not providing safety equipment at the worksite. On this basis, a prima facie offence under Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was said to be made out against both the accused. 22. The FIR further indicates that during investigation, spot inspection was conducted, a site map was prepared, the broken electric pole was seized, and samples thereof were sent for quality testing. Reports were obtained from the Executive Engineer, Civil Division, Raipur and Executive Engineer, Project Division, Durg, wherein deficiency in the quality of the PCC pole was noted. It is also stated that both accused were summoned, questioned and allegedly accepted negligence in not checking the quality of the pole and in not providing safety equipment. Both accused were arrested on 18.08.2025 and later released on bail, the offence being bailable, and thereafter Charge Sheet was filed. 23. Considering the matter in its entirety, it clearly emerges that the unfortunate death of the deceased occurred during execution of 11 electrical work at the worksite under the control and supervision of the petitioner–contractor and the co-accused supervisor. The investigation discloses that the electric pole used at the site was found to be of sub-standard quality and that no adequate safety equipment had been provided to the labourer. The laboratory report indicating that the strength of the PCC pole was substantially below the prescribed standard lends prima facie support to the prosecution case. These facts, taken cumulatively, disclose a live and direct nexus between the acts and omissions attributed to the petitioner and the fatal incident, sufficient at this stage to constitute the offence punishable under Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 24. The contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the pole was procured from an approved vendor, that no quality report was furnished by the supplier, that CSPDCL failed to conduct inspection, and that the manufacturer or vendor ought to have been arrayed as an accused, are essentially matters of defence. Such pleas necessarily involve appreciation of evidence, examination of contractual obligations, determination of the extent of duty of care and apportionment of liability, all of which fall squarely within the domain of the trial Court and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings invoking inherent powers of this Court. 25. Similarly, the plea that the petitioner had already deposited compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, though a 12 relevant mitigating circumstance, cannot ipso facto absolve the petitioner of criminal liability, if otherwise made out. Payment of compensation in a civil or statutory framework does not eclipse criminal prosecution where the ingredients of the alleged offence are prima facie disclosed. 26. This Court also finds no merit in the submission that the witness statements are identical or that there are procedural irregularities vitiating the entire investigation. At the stage of considering a petition for quashing, this Court is not required to meticulously examine the credibility or probative value of witness statements. Unless the materials on record are so absurd, inherently improbable or wholly insufficient to constitute any offence, the criminal proceedings ought not to be interdicted. 27. The scope of interference under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS is well circumscribed. The power is to be exercised sparingly, with great caution and only in the rarest of rare cases to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice. 28. This Court is satisfied that the prosecution has placed sufficient material to justify the continuation of criminal proceedings and that the allegations, if taken at their face value, make out a prima facie case against the petitioner. Any observation on the merits of the defence at this stage would amount to a premature evaluation of evidence and may cause prejudice to either party at the trial. 13 29. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. It is, however, clarified that all observations made herein are confined only to the adjudication of the present petition under Section 528 BNSS and shall not influence or prejudice the trial Court in any manner while deciding the case on its own merits, in accordance with law. 30. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu