1 2026:CGHC:26806-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1689 of 2026 Kailash Yadav S/o Janak Ram Yadav Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 01, Avas Para 27 Kholi, Mahima Nagar, Sirgitti, Thana Sirgitti, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgrah. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Station House Officer, Mahila Police Station, Bilaspur, Distt - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Smt. Mamta Pandey ( Dubey) W/o. Late Krishna Kumar Dubey Aged About 58 Years R/o Police Line Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ujjwal Choubey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 01 .07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ujjwal Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, learned Deputy Government Advocate, BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.07.01 18:03:08 +0530 2 appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “i. Allow the instant petition and extend the benefit of parity to the petitioner in terms of the final order dated 15.06.2026 passed by this Hon’ble Court in CRMP No. 1350 of 2026; ii. Quash the FIR dated 21.06.2018 arising out of Crime No. 35 of 2018 registered at Mahila Thana, Bilaspur, along with all consequential criminal proceedings and charge-sheet No. 13 of 2019 dated 12.04.2019 currently pending against the petitioner before the Court of learned JMFC, Bilaspur; iii. Pass any other order(s) which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, just, and equitable under the facts and circumstances of the case. Criminal intimation and obstruction.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was working as a professional cameraman/videographer with the news channel News Nation India and was deputed to cover news events in Bilaspur District along with reporter Smt. Shriya Panday. He further submitted that on the intervening night of 20.06.2018, upon receiving information regarding the alleged illegal confinement of public health nurses and their spouses at Mahila Thana, Bilaspur, the petitioner accompanied the reporter to the police station solely in discharge of his professional duties as a member of the media. It is contended that when the media team 3 attempted to record the version of the aggrieved persons and sought clarification from the officer concerned, the police personnel reacted aggressively, threatened the media team, attempted to prevent the recording and compelled them to leave the police station. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner that the entire prosecution is vitiated by gross and unexplained delay. Although the alleged incident is of 20.06.2018, the charge-sheet was filed only on 11.11.2024, after more than six years, without any legally sustainable explanation. Such inordinate delay, it is contended, violates the petitioner's fundamental right to a speedy investigation and trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and renders the continuation of the criminal proceedings an abuse of the process of law. He also submitted that the investigation is wholly one-sided, as it rests exclusively on the statements of police personnel and officials subordinate to the complainant, without the support of any independent witness, despite the alleged occurrence having taken place in a public police station. It is also contended that the statements recorded during investigation suffer from material inconsistencies and fail to inspire confidence. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even if the allegations contained in the FIR and the charge-sheet are accepted in their entirety, they do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 186, 353, 323 and 34 of the IPC. It is contended that the petitioner, being a media cameraman performing 4 his professional duties, had neither the intention nor the overt act necessary to attract the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated. He further submits that the co-accused, Smt. Shriya Panday, against whom identical allegations arising out of the same incident, FIR, investigation and charge-sheet were made, approached this Hon'ble Court by filing CRMP No. 1350 of 2026. By judgment dated 15.06.2026, this Hon'ble Court quashed the FIR, charge-sheet and cognizance order, holding that the prosecution was vitiated by unexplained delay, infringed the right to speedy investigation and trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, and was based solely on the statements of interested police witnesses without any independent corroboration. 6. It is, therefore, submitted that the case of the present petitioner is indistinguishable from that of the co-accused. Once this Court has found the very foundation of the prosecution to be legally unsustainable, permitting the proceedings to continue against the present Petitioner alone, on the same set of allegations and evidence, would offend the principle of parity and amount to a manifest abuse of the process of the Court. It is, accordingly, prayed that the impugned FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order and all consequential criminal proceedings against the Petitioner be quashed. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and supported the impugned proceedings. It is submitted that the FIR discloses the commission of cognizable offences and that, upon completion of investigation, the 5 charge-sheet has been filed after collecting sufficient material against the petitioner. It is further contended that the grounds urged by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS. It is, therefore, prayed that the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. From the record, it is evident that the present petitioner and the co-accused, Smt. Shriya Panday, were members of the same media team and are alleged to have been involved in the very same incident dated 20.06.2018. The FIR bearing Crime No. 35 of 2018 came to be registered at Mahila Thana, Bilaspur on 21.06.2018 against both of them on identical allegations. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur on 11.11.2024, whereupon cognizance of the alleged offences under Sections 186, 353, 323 and 34 of the IPC was taken on 20.01.2025. 10. It is also not in dispute that the co-accused, Smt. Shriya Panday, assailed the very same FIR, charge-sheet and cognizance order by filing CRMP No. 1350 of 2026 before this Court. By a detailed judgment dated 15.06.2026, this Court quashed the FIR dated 21.06.2018, the charge-sheet dated 11.11.2024, the order taking cognizance dated 20.01.2025, and all consequential criminal proceedings arising 6 therefrom. While doing so, this Court held that the prosecution suffered from gross and unexplained delay, violated the constitutional guarantee of a speedy investigation and trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and was founded solely upon the statements of interested police personnel without any independent corroboration. 11. Having considered the rival submissions and on a careful examination of the record, this Court finds that the case of the present petitioner stands on an identical footing with that of the co-accused. The allegations, the FIR, the investigation, the charge-sheet, the cognizance order and the evidence relied upon by the prosecution are common to both the accused. The State has failed to point out any distinguishing feature or any additional material which would justify continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present petitioner after the proceedings against the co-accused have already been quashed by this Court. 12. Once this Court has held, in respect of the co-accused arising out of the very same transaction, that the prosecution is vitiated by unexplained delay and that the material collected during investigation does not justify continuation of the criminal proceedings, no useful purpose would be served in permitting the prosecution against the present petitioner alone to continue. Such a course would offend the well-settled principle of parity and would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion and applying the principle of 7 parity with the judgment dated 15.06.2026 passed by this Court in CRMP No. 1350 of 2026, the present petition deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed. 14. Consequently, the FIR dated 21.06.2018 registered as Crime No.35 of 2018 at Mahila Thana, Bilaspur, the charge-sheet dated 11.11.2024, the order taking cognizance passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom, insofar as they concern the present petitioner, stand quashed. 15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan