1 2026:CGHC:6143-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 364 of 2026 Mithlesh Kumar Paswan S/o Suklesh Kumar Paswan Aged About 25 Years R/o Talsabriya Thana Majhiao, District- Gadwa, Jharkhand ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Daulat Patel S/o Late Shri Onkar Patel Aged About 50 Years R/o Madhuban Para, Modipa A Thana City Kotwali, Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Amit Soni, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 04.02.2026 1 Heard Mr. Amit Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 2 The present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the petitioner seeking following prayer :- “I. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed by the petitioners. II. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the F.I.R. bearing No. 74/2025 dated 14.02.2025 registered at Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh registered under Sections 105 of BNS. III. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash entire charge sheet/final report bearing No. 91/2025 filed on 10.04.2025 in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh for the offences punishable under Sections 105 of BNS & Section 3/181, 5/180 of Motor Vehicle Act. IV. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order of taking cognizance dated 30.07.2025, passed in Criminal Case No. 1016/2025 in the matter of "State of Chhattisgarh v. Mithlesh Kumar Paswan & Another", whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, has taken cognizance of the impugned Charge sheet and registered the impugned criminal proceeding as Criminal Case No. 1016/2025 against the petitioner. V. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Order of framing of Charge dated 23.01.2026 passed in Session Trial No. 129/2025 & may also kindly be pleased to quash the charge memo dated 23.01.2026. VI. And to kindly grant any other relief to the petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case, may also granted to the Petitioners.” 3 The case of prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a report on 14.02.2025 at Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, District 3 Raigarh, alleging that on 13.02.2025 at about 10:15 PM, his elder brother Bodhram Patel met with a fatal road accident near Ambedkar Chowk. It was reported that a 12-wheel truck bearing registration No.CG 13 AR 5750, being driven at high speed and in a negligent manner in a restricted no-entry zone, dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased, resulting in severe crushing injuries leading to his instantaneous death. Eyewitnesses stated that the driver failed to stop the vehicle despite knowing that the victim was trapped, and immediate stopping could have saved his life. On the basis of the said report, FIR No. 74/2025 was registered on 14.02.2025 for the offence under Section 105 of the BNS and investigation commenced. The petitioner (driver of the truck) was arrested on the same day and was granted bail on 22.04.2025. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet No. 91/2025 dated 10.04.2025 was filed for offences under Section 105 of BNS and Sections 3/181 and 5/180 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, took cognizance vide order dated 30.07.2025. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS before this Court being CRMP No. 3579 of 2025, which came to dismissed by this Court vide order dated 25.11.2025. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to urge all permissible pleas including the contention that he was not the driver of the offending vehicle before the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage. After dismissal of the said petition, charges have been framed against the petitioner on 23.01.2026. Hence, 4 this petition with the aforementioned prayers. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that, on a bare perusal of the FIR, it is prima facie evident that the FIR itself mentions that due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, the deceased met with an accident and was thereafter dragged by the said vehicle. Thus, there is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner committed the alleged offence with intention, knowledge, or premeditation. In the absence of these essential ingredients, which are required to attract an offence under Section 105 of the BNS, the said provision cannot be said to apply. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings amounts to a gross abuse of the process of law. Learned counsel further submitted that the entire charge sheet does not place any material before the Court to attract the offence under Section 105 of the BNS. Consequently, the framing of the charge and continuation of the criminal proceedings under Section 105 of the BNS would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. He also contended that for framing a charge under Section 105 of the BNS, the intention or knowledge of the accused, or the fact that the act was done with premeditation, must be clearly established on record. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Mahadev Prasad Kaushik vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, reported in (2008) 14 SCC 479. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was not driving the alleged offending vehicle at the time 5 of the accident. He is merely employed as a Munshi/Clerk under one Himanshu Agrawal, who is also a co-accused in the case, and the petitioner had no knowledge of driving; he does not possess a driving license. The actual driver of the vehicle, namely Pardeshi Sahu Prem, fled from the spot, and the petitioner has no knowledge regarding his whereabouts. Learned counsel contended that immediately after the registration of the FIR, the petitioner’s father submitted a complaint to the concerned authorities stating that the petitioner had been falsely implicated. He further submitted that during the investigation, the police issued a notice to the owner of the vehicle to produce the vehicle documents, as well as documents relating to the petitioner’s employment, salary slips, and payment receipts. The owner duly provided all the requested information to the police, but the same was not considered and was merely placed in the charge sheet. Therefore, the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law and deserves to be quashed. 6 On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the present petition and submits that the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings is wholly misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. The FIR and the investigation prima facie disclose that the death of the deceased occurred due to rash and negligent driving, which resulted in a fatal accident. The petitioner’s attempt to distance himself from the incident on the 6 ground that he was not driving the vehicle cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings at this stage. The investigation has revealed that the petitioner was in employment under Himanshu Agrawal, the vehicle owner, and although he may not have been driving at the precise moment of the accident, the legal provisions under Section 105 of the BNS contemplate criminal liability for acts committed in furtherance of negligence in the operation or management of a vehicle, and the petitioner’s role is a matter to be investigated during trial. It is further submitted that the charge sheet has been filed after proper investigation, including the collection of vehicle documents, employment records, salary slips, and other relevant material. The petitioner’s claim that these documents were not considered is incorrect; they were examined and taken into account in framing the charges. The petitioner’s alleged lack of a driving license or knowledge of the whereabouts of the actual driver does not absolve him of responsibility at this stage, as the scope of Section 105 of BNS extends to those who are involved in the negligent operation of vehicles and whose acts contribute to the commission of the offence. Therefore, it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed and the criminal proceedings be allowed to continue in accordance with law. 7 We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned FIR, charge-sheet, order taking cognizance and the materials placed on record. 8 Upon careful perusal of the record, including the FIR, charge 7 sheet, and submissions of both parties, this Court finds that the allegations in the FIR disclose a prima facie case under Section 105 of the BNS, 2023. The deceased met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving, and the petitioner’s precise role in relation to the vehicle and the accident requires investigation and trial. The petitioner’s claim that he was not driving the vehicle, lacked a driving license, and that the actual driver fled from the scene are factual disputes which cannot be adjudicated at the stage of quashment. The Court also observes that relevant documents, including employment records, salary slips, and vehicle papers, were collected during the investigation and considered while framing the charges. The existence of these materials establishes that the charge sheet was filed after due investigation and there is sufficient prima facie material to proceed with trial. At this stage, it is not open to the Court to evaluate the petitioner’s guilt or examine the evidence in detail. 9 In view of the foregoing, the petition lacks merit. There is no substance in the contention that the continuation of proceedings constitutes an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the petition seeking quashment of the FIR, charge sheet, and proceedings under Section 105 of the BNS, 2023 is dismissed. The learned Trial Court is directed to continue with the trial in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra