1 2026:CGHC:27338-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1718 of 2026 1 - Joseph Minj S/o Sahdev Minj Aged About 40 Years Occupation- Laborer, R/o- Village Khamhar, Police Station Lailunga, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Sonu Ekka S/o- Ramdhan Ekka, Aged About 26 Years Occupation- Laborer, R/o- Village Khamhar, Police Station Lailunga, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Lailunga, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate For State/respondent : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Adv. General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers :- “1. To kindly quash the First Information Report dated 26-10-2025 bearing Crime No. 281/2025, Registered at ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh (C.G.) against the Petitioners. 2. To kindly quash the impugned Final Report No. 18/2026 dated 04-02-2026, filed against the petitioners Under Section 105, 61(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita and 135 of the Electricity Act. 3. To kindly quash the impugned order dated 12-02- 2026 whereby the learned Special Judge (Electricity Act) District Raigarh (C.G.) has taken the cognizance of the impugned charge sheet and registered the impugned criminal proceedings as Special Criminal Case Under the Electricity Act No. 48/2026 against the petitioners. 4. To kindly quash the impugned Charges framed under section 105, 61(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita and 135 of the Electricity Act on 10-04-2026 by the learned Special Judge (Electricity Act) District Raigarh (C.G.) against the petitioners.” 3. The prosecution story in short is that, on 12.10.2025, informant Alok Kumar Sahu appeared at the Police Station-Lailunga and lodged an oral intimation that on 12.10.2025, Lalkumar Sahu had got the paddy from his field Mudabahla harvested and on the pretext that wild boars eat the paddy at night, both he and Lalkumar Sahu had gone to the field to burst firecrackers to scare them, where some unknown person had connected a wire to an electric pole to kill the boars and tied the wire by planting a stick at the edge of the field, Lalkumar Sahu's left leg got entangled in the same wire and got stuck in the wire. Due to the sticking of the leg, he got electrocuted due to which Lalkumar Sahu died on the spot. On the report of the informant, after registering the inquest 3 intimation, the body was taken into panchnama proceedings and in the inquest investigation, PM, inspection of the spot of incident and from the statement of the witnesses, it was found that the death of the deceased Lalkumar Sahu was due to coming in contact with the electric connection laid near the farm of the deceased by an unknown person, hence, crime number 281/2025 under section 105, 61(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita and 135 of the Electricity Act has been registered against the unknown accused in Police Station-Lailunga District Raigarh and taken into investigation. After completion of investigation, the police made the villagers including the petitioners as accused in the case and prosecuted them under section 105, 61(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita and 135 of the Electricity Act and filed the charge sheet against the petitioners and others on 04.02.2026 bearing Charge Sheet No.18/2026 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharghoda District Raigarh (C.G.). Being aggrieved by the same, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned FIR and the consequential charge-sheet deserve to be quashed as they are founded on vague, omnibus, and speculative allegations without any cogent material connecting the petitioners with the alleged offence. He further submitted that the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons, and the petitioners have been implicated merely on the basis of suspicion arising from statements allegedly made by the Sarpanch and certain 4 villagers. He also submitted that the charge-sheet itself discloses that the deceased was accidentally electrocuted after his leg got entangled in a live wire allegedly installed by an unknown person to prevent wild boars from damaging crops. There is no eyewitness who has seen the petitioners installing the wire or committing any overt act, nor does the agricultural field where the incident occurred belong to the petitioners. Furthermore, except for a memorandum statement, there is no legally admissible or independent evidence against the petitioners, and even the alleged seizure is limited to a wooden stick recovered from co- accused Joseph Minj, with no incriminating recovery from petitioner Sonu Ekka. In these circumstances, the essential ingredients of Sections 105 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are not attracted against the petitioners. It is further submitted that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and would cause grave prejudice to the petitioners. He contended that this Hon'ble Court has already been pleased to grant regular bail to the petitioners in M.Cr.C. No. 1729/2026 by order dated 19.02.2026, which itself reflects that their custodial detention was not warranted. He further contended that the prosecution has cited as many as 20 witnesses, yet not a single witness has been examined, indicating that the trial is likely to take considerable time. In the absence of any prima facie material establishing the petitioners' involvement, compelling them to undergo a protracted criminal trial would be 5 contrary to the settled principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction, hence the impugned FIR, charge-sheet, and all consequential criminal proceedings against the petitioners be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that the present petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is contended that the investigation has been conducted in accordance with law and, upon completion thereof, a charge- sheet has been filed on the basis of sufficient material collected during the course of investigation. Though the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons, the involvement of the petitioners surfaced during investigation through the statements of witnesses recorded under law, memorandum statements, seizure proceedings, and other incriminating circumstances forming a complete chain of prima facie evidence. It is further contended that at the stage of considering a petition for quashing, this Hon'ble Court is only required to examine whether the allegations and the material collected disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, and not to appreciate the evidentiary value of such material as would be done during trial. It is further submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioners regarding absence of eyewitnesses, ownership of the land, admissibility of memorandum statements, alleged lack of recovery, and non- applicability of the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are all disputed questions of fact which can be adjudicated only upon 6 appreciation of evidence during trial. The grant of regular bail to the petitioners does not ipso facto entitle them to quashing of the criminal proceedings, as the considerations governing bail and quashing are distinct. The charge-sheet discloses sufficient prima facie material to proceed against the petitioners, and therefore the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ought not to be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons and, during the course of investigation, the names of the petitioners surfaced. Upon completion of investigation, the investigating agency filed the charge-sheet after collecting material including witness statements, memorandum statements, seizure proceedings, and other circumstances which, according to the prosecution, prima facie connect the petitioners with the alleged offence. 7. The scope of interference under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is well settled. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court illustratively enumerated the categories of cases wherein the extraordinary power to quash criminal proceedings may be exercised. The Court simultaneously cautioned that such power is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in the rarest of rare cases. 7 The present case does not fall within any of the categories formulated in Bhajan Lal (supra) warranting interference. 8. Likewise, in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that while exercising jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings, the High Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or evaluate the correctness of the allegations. If the allegations in the First Information Report, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court should ordinarily refrain from stalling the prosecution. The Court further held that disputed questions of fact and the defence of the accused are matters to be considered during trial and not at the stage of quashing. 9. Very 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 further held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now 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 the test laid down in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor and observed that criminal proceedings can be quashed at the threshold only when the material relied upon by the accused is of sterling and impeccable quality, completely demolishes the prosecution case, remains 8 incapable of being refuted by the prosecution, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. Unless all these parameters are cumulatively satisfied, the High Court ought not to interfere in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, leaving the parties to establish their respective cases before the trial Court in accordance with law. 10. The principal contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no direct evidence against them, that the prosecution case rests upon suspicion and memorandum statements, and that the ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out. However, these submissions involve disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The absence of an eyewitness, the alleged non- recovery from one of the petitioners, the ownership of the land where the incident occurred, and the defence sought to be projected by the petitioners are all matters to be examined during the course of trial. At the stage of quashing, the Court is only required to ascertain whether the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. This Court finds that the material placed along with the charge-sheet cannot be said to be so inherently improbable or absurd as to warrant interference under the inherent jurisdiction. 11. The fact that the petitioners have been granted regular bail also 9 does not furnish a ground to quash the criminal proceedings, as the considerations governing grant of bail and quashing of criminal proceedings are distinct and operate in different fields. The inherent power is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in the rarest of rare cases where continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law or where no offence is made out on the face of the record. The present case does not fall within any of the recognized categories warranting exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have failed to make out any case for exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the impugned FIR, charge-sheet, or the consequential criminal proceedings. Since the charge-sheet discloses a prima facie case and the issues raised by the petitioners require adjudication on evidence during trial, no interference is called for at this stage. 13. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that any observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not influence the Trial Court while deciding the case on its own merits and in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra