1 2026:CGHC:26715-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1688 of 2026 Vinay Singh Thakur S/o Shri Gajraj Singh Thakur Aged About 50 Years (Aadhar No. 541351815589) R/o Vikas Nagar, House No 203, Kotra Road, Police Station- City Kotwali, Raigarh, Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Home Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 2. The District Magistrate Raigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) 3. The Superintendent of Police Raigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) 4. The Station House Officer Police Station Kotra Road District- Raigarh (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Sharma and Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocates. For Respondents/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.07.02 18:33:38 +0530 2 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. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner along with Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “(i) Quash the FIR No. 178 of 2026 dated 09.06.2026 (Annexure P/1) qua the petitioner, registered at Police Station – Kotra Road, Raigarh for offence punishable under Sections 49A, 34(2), 36, 59A of the CG Excise Act, 1915 and Section 275, 336(3), 336(4), 340(2) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023. (ii) Quash and/or set aside the entire consequential criminal proceedings, if any, qua the petitioner, emanating from the aforesaid FIR No. 178 of 2026 dated 09.06.2026 (Annexure P/1), in the interest of justice. (iii) Stay the arrest of the petitioner in connection with FIR No. 178 of 2026 dated 09.06.2026 (Annexure P/1) and direct that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner in connection to aforesaid FIR (Annexure P/1), in the interest of justice; 3 (iv) Any other orders in favour of the petitioner may be passed as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition has been filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court seeking quashment of FIR No. 178/2026 dated 09.06.2026 registered at Police Station Kotra Road, District Raigarh, along with protection against coercive action, as the allegations against the petitioner do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence warranting his prosecution. He further submitted that the impugned FIR pertains to an alleged raid conducted on the intervening night of 08.06.2026 at the house of co- accused Dushyant Patel and Subhash Patel situated at Village Dhanagar, District Raigarh, from where the police allegedly recovered spurious liquor, fake holograms, stickers, caps and other articles. Learned counsel submits that the entire seizure was effected from the premises of the co-accused and no recovery whatsoever has been made from the petitioner, his residence, his vehicle or from any place connected with him. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the memorandum/disclosure statement allegedly made by co-accused Dushyant Patel. Except for such disclosure, the FIR itself does not disclose any independent material connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. There is no allegation of any recovery at the instance of the petitioner, nor is there any allegation of his conscious possession of 4 any incriminating article. It is submitted that a disclosure statement of a co- accused, being inadmissible in evidence except to the limited extent permissible under law, cannot by itself constitute the foundation for prosecuting the petitioner. He further submitted that the FIR does not attribute any overt act to the petitioner except a vague allegation in the memorandum of the co-accused that the petitioner used to bring spirit and bottle caps from outside and, at times, deliver liquor in his vehicle. According to learned counsel, such bald allegations, unsupported by any independent recovery or corroborative material, are wholly insufficient to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even assuming, without admitting, that the prosecution seeks to invoke the theory of criminal conspiracy, the basic ingredients of conspiracy are conspicuously absent. It is argued that the FIR does not disclose when the alleged conspiracy was entered into, where it was hatched, who were its participants, or what material exists to establish any agreement between the alleged conspirators. It is submitted that an agreement is the sine qua non of the offence of criminal conspiracy and, in the absence of any material demonstrating such agreement either directly or by necessary implication, the allegation of conspiracy cannot be sustained. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala v. P. Sugathan, reported in (2000) 8 SCC 203. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that immediately after registration of the FIR, the police issued a notice requiring the petitioner to appear for inquiry. It is contended that issuance of such notice 5 itself demonstrates that the petitioner's presence could be secured through the process of law and, therefore, custodial arrest is wholly unnecessary. It is further submitted that despite the absence of any incriminating material disclosed in the FIR, the police have publicly described the petitioner as the "mastermind" and have allegedly threatened attachment of his movable and immovable properties in the event of his non-surrender, thereby adopting a pre-judged and coercive approach even before completion of investigation. He also submitted that proceedings for anticipatory bail are not maintainable under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 and, therefore, the petitioner has no efficacious alternative remedy to safeguard his personal liberty except by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is a reputed citizen having no criminal antecedents. It is submitted that the petitioner, along with his wife, who is a qualified medical practitioner, is engaged in running a hospital and Aarogyam Kendra. It is also submitted that the petitioner's brother is an office bearer of the opposition political party, namely the Indian National Congress, and the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to extraneous considerations and mala fide motives. He also contended that even if the entire prosecution case is accepted on its face value, the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 49A, 34(2), 36 and 59A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 and Sections 275, 336(3), 336(4), 340(2) and 61(2) of the BNS are not made out against the petitioner, inasmuch as no material is disclosed showing his possession, manufacture, storage, transportation or seizure of any illicit liquor or any other incriminating article. 6 8. Learned counsel further submits that insofar as the allegation relating to fake holograms, labels or stickers is concerned, even assuming the allegations to be true for the sake of argument, the same would, at best, give rise to proceedings under Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 dealing with falsification and false application of trade marks. It is contended that the facts alleged in the FIR do not disclose the commission of the offences invoked against the petitioner under the BNS or the Chhattisgarh Excise Act merely because fake labels or holograms are alleged to have been used. Therefore, according to learned counsel, the very invocation of the penal provisions against the petitioner is legally unsustainable. 9. Lastly, learned counsel submits that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, in the absence of any legally admissible material connecting him with the alleged crime, amounts to abuse of the process of law and unjustified infringement of his personal liberty. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned FIR, insofar as it relates to the petitioner, deserves to be quashed and, in the meanwhile, appropriate protection from coercive action may also be granted. 10. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the allegations disclosed in the impugned FIR prima facie reveal commission of serious cognizable offences involving manufacture and sale of spurious liquor on a commercial scale, thereby posing a serious threat to public health and safety. It is submitted that acting upon credible secret information, a joint team of the Police, Excise Department and Cyber Police conducted a raid, pursuant to which a huge quantity of adulterated 7 liquor, fake holograms, counterfeit labels, bottle caps and other incriminating articles were recovered from the premises of the co-accused. It is submitted that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the role of all the accused persons, including the present petitioner, is yet to be fully unearthed. 11. Learned State counsel further submits that the contention of the petitioner that his implication is based only upon the memorandum statement of the co-accused cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’). Whether the memorandum statement is admissible in evidence, whether it is corroborated by any other material collected during investigation and whether sufficient evidence ultimately exists against the petitioner are all matters falling within the domain of investigation and trial. It is submitted that at the stage of registration of the FIR or investigation, the Court is not required to appreciate the evidentiary value of the material collected by the investigating agency. 12. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been named in the FIR and specific allegations have been levelled against him regarding procurement of spirit, bottle caps and transportation of liquor in furtherance of the alleged illegal activity. Such allegations disclose a prima facie case warranting investigation and, therefore, this Court ought not to interfere with the investigation in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. 13. Learned State counsel also submits that the argument founded upon Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is misconceived. According to him, the allegations are not confined merely to the use of counterfeit labels 8 or holograms but relate to the larger offence of manufacturing, storing and selling adulterated liquor by using fake labels and holograms. Therefore, merely because the allegations may also attract provisions of the Trade Marks Act would not exclude the applicability of the provisions of the BNS and the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. A perusal of the impugned FIR shows that acting upon secret information, a joint team comprising officials of the Police, Excise Department and Cyber Police conducted a raid at the premises of co- accused Dushyant Patel and Subhash Patel situated at Village Dhanagar, District Raigarh. During the raid, 230.460 litres of alleged spurious liquor, fake holograms, counterfeit labels, bottle caps and other articles were recovered from the said premises. Thereafter, the impugned FIR came to be registered for offences punishable under Sections 275, 336(3), 336(4), 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 34(2), 36, 49A and 59A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915. 16. The legal position governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS") is well settled. The jurisdiction to quash an FIR is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised sparingly, with great circumspection and only in exceptional cases. Ordinarily, the High Court should not interfere with the investigation of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations contained in the FIR, even if taken at their face value 9 and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie disclose the commission of any offence or continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law, the Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill, reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. & Others, reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, has consistently held that where the allegations made in the complaint or FIR prima facie disclose the ingredients of the alleged offence, the Court ought not to quash the criminal proceedings at the threshold. However, where the allegations are patently absurd, inherently improbable or fail to constitute any offence, the Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that while considering petitions for quashing of criminal proceedings, the High Court must exercise such power with great care and circumspection. 18. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the BNSS), the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations, appreciate the evidence or conduct a mini trial. The Court is only required to examine whether the allegations contained in the FIR, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. It was further held that investigation into cognizable 10 offences should ordinarily be permitted to proceed unhindered and that criminal proceedings should not be scuttled at the threshold except in the rarest of exceptional cases. 19. Recently, in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No.3831 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid principles and held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, the High Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact or evaluate the evidentiary worth of the material collected during investigation. The Court reaffirmed that criminal proceedings can be quashed only where the material relied upon by the accused is of sterling and impeccable quality, completely demolishes the prosecution case, remains incapable of being refuted by the prosecution and continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Unless all these conditions are cumulatively satisfied, interference under Section 528 of the BNSS would not be justified. 20. Examining the facts of the present case in the light of the aforesaid legal principles, it is true that no recovery has been effected from the present petitioner. However, the FIR specifically attributes to the petitioner a role in the alleged illegal activity and the memorandum statement of co- accused Dushyant Patel also refers to the petitioner's involvement in procuring spirit and bottle caps from outside and, at times, transporting liquor in his vehicle. Whether such allegations are ultimately proved, whether the memorandum statement is admissible in evidence, whether it is corroborated by independent material collected during investigation and 11 whether sufficient evidence ultimately exists against the petitioner are all disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. Such issues necessarily fall within the domain of investigation and, if required, trial. 21. The contention of the petitioner that no offence under the BNS or the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 is made out and that, at best, the allegations would attract the provisions of Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, also cannot be accepted at this stage. Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act provides punishment for applying false trade marks or trade descriptions and dealing in goods bearing false trade marks. However, the allegations in the present FIR are not confined merely to the use of fake holograms or counterfeit labels. The FIR alleges a larger conspiracy involving procurement of spirit, manufacture of adulterated liquor, use of counterfeit holograms and labels, storage, transportation and sale of such liquor. Therefore, merely because the allegations may also attract the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, it cannot be held, at this stage, that the provisions invoked in the impugned FIR under the BNS and the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 are ex facie inapplicable. 22. Likewise, the contention that the petitioner has been falsely implicated solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co- accused and that the ingredients of criminal conspiracy are not made out, are all matters which require appreciation of the material collected during investigation. Whether there existed any agreement between the accused persons, whether the petitioner had any role in the alleged commission of the offence and whether the material ultimately collected by the 12 investigating agency is sufficient to establish his complicity are matters which cannot be conclusively determined while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. At this stage, this Court is only required to examine whether the allegations contained in the FIR, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. This Court cannot undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or record findings on disputed questions of fact. 23. Having considered the allegations contained in the impugned FIR and the material placed on record in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not fall within any of the exceptional categories illustratively carved out in Neeharika (supra) and reiterated in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra) warranting exercise of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. The allegations levelled against the petitioner cannot, at this stage, be characterised as inherently improbable, manifestly absurd or so patently frivolous that no prudent person could arrive at a prima facie conclusion regarding the commission of the alleged offences. The issues sought to be raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact which are required to be examined during the course of investigation and, if necessary, in subsequent proceedings in accordance with law. 24. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for quashing the impugned FIR in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. Consequently, the petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is 13 accordingly dismissed. 25. It is, however, made clear that the observations recorded herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The Investigating Agency shall proceed with the investigation independently and strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made in this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan