1 2026:CGHC:22488-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1330 of 2026 Kamleshwar Kumar Suryawanshi S/o. Shri Kedal Ram Suryavanshi Aged About 38 Years R/o. Banari, Police Station And Tahsil Janjgir District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Pawan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble S hri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13/05/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashment VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.05.15 10:59:06 +0530 2 of FIR bearing Crime No. 790/2025 registered at Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as well as charge-sheet, cognizance order dated 17.11.2025 and entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2218/2025 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 3. The petitioner has filed the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition with the following relief: “1. That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023 filed by the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 2. That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR bearing No. 790/2025 registered on dated 03.09.2025 at police station Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh filed under section 106(1) of B.N.S. and section 146/196 of Motor Vehicle Act and final report filed on dated 17.11.2025, in the interest of justice. 3. That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash entire charge sheet dated 31.10.2025 before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Janjgir District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh under section 106(1) of B.N.S. and section 146/196 of Motor Vehicle Act against the petitioner in the interest of justice. 4. That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to 3 quash cognizance dated 17.11.2025 for offence U/s. 106(1) of B.N.S. and section 146/196 of Motor Vehicle Act taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Janjgir District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh and also to further quash entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No. 2218/2025, in the interest of justice. 5. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly grant any other reliefs in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.06.2025 at about 7:20 p.m., one Jethin Bai Ajgale, while proceeding on foot towards Akaltara, was allegedly hit near the house of Deendayal Lahre by a Mahindra Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing registration No. CG-11-AX-7411, which was allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent manner, due to which she sustained grievous injuries and subsequently died during treatment. On the basis of the said incident, FIR bearing Crime No. 790/2025 came to be registered on 03.09.2025 at Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa for the offence under Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the present petitioner and, after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir, where Criminal Case No. 2218/2025 is pending consideration. The case of the petitioner is that his vehicle bearing registration No. CG-11-AX-7411 was stationed at his house at the relevant time and the accident was caused by another vehicle 4 bearing registration No. CG-11-DX-7411, however, despite his complaint to the concerned authorities, he has falsely been implicated in the present case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case, as the offending vehicle involved in the accident was not the vehicle belonging to the petitioner bearing registration No. CG-11-AX-7411, but another vehicle bearing registration No. CG-11-DX-7411, which is apparent from the photographs of the spot annexed with the petition. He further submits that at the relevant time the petitioner’s vehicle was parked at his house and despite making complaint before the concerned police authorities regarding incorrect involvement of his vehicle, no proper investigation was conducted by the police. It is also submitted that the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate delay of about three months from the date of incident without any proper explanation and even from bare perusal of the FIR and charge-sheet, no material is available showing involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. He submits that continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of law and, therefore, the impugned FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order and entire criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that after due investigation, the police has filed charge-sheet before the competent Court and the learned trial Court has already framed charges against the petitioner. He further submits that there 5 are sufficient materials available in the charge-sheet connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence and the defence sought to be raised by the petitioner with regard to the vehicle number and false implication involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. It is therefore submitted that no case for interference or quashment of the impugned FIR and criminal proceedings is made out and the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. It appears that after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and charges have also been framed against the petitioner. From the material collected during investigation, prima facie sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with law. 8. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner regarding involvement of another vehicle and false implication relate to disputed questions of fact, which can appropriately be examined during trial on the basis of evidence led by the parties. At this stage, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., this Court is not inclined to conduct a roving enquiry into the factual aspects of the matter. Accordingly, no case for interference is made out and the petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved