1 CGHC010260252026 2026:CGHC:28809-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1785 of 2026 Vivek Verma S/o Sanjay Verma Aged About 26 Years R/o Gali No. 1, Mukti Dham, Ward No. 09, Shankar Nagar, P.S. Mohan Nagar, District Durg C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2 - The Director General Of Police Police Department, New Raipur District Raipur C.G. 3 - Superintendent Of Police Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Station House Officer, Police Station Padmnabhpur, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 5 – Smt. Suman Markanday W/o Shivnandan Markanday Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Borshi, Shubhas Chowk Police Station, Padmnabhpur, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Jai Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 4-State : Mr.Sumit Singh, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.07.13 10:16:15 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10.07.2026 1. Heard Mr.Jai Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Sumit Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1 to 4/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘B.N.S.S.’) with the following relief(s):- “1. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under section 528 of B.N.S. 2023 filed by the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 2. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR bearing No. 115/2026 registered on dated 16.02.2026 at police station Padmnabhpur, District Durg Chhattisgarh filed under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27(3) of the Arms Act in the interest of justice. 3. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash entire charge sheet dated 15.05.26 before learned Principal & District Judge Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh, under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27(3) of the Arms Act in the interest of justice. 4. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash cognizance taken by the learned Principal & District Judge Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh, in the interest of justice. 5. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly grant any 3 other reliefs in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.02.2026 at about 09:45 P.M., owing to an alleged previous dispute, co-accused Prakash Yadav assaulted the injured Shivnandan Markande with a knife, causing a stab injury to his abdomen. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the wife of the injured, FIR No. 115/2026 was registered on 16.02.2026 under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, against the principal accused, Prakash Yadav. 4. During the course of investigation, it was alleged that the knife used in the incident had been purchased through the online platform Meesho. It was further alleged that the present petitioner, Vivek Verma, was associated with the logistics/delivery process relating to the said purchase. Solely on the basis of such alleged association, the petitioner has been charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959. 5. Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge- sheet before the learned Sessions Judge, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. The case was thereafter transferred to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, where it has been registered as Criminal Case No. 179/2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959. The trial is presently pending before the said Court. Hence, the present petition. 4 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case without there being any legally admissible material to connect him with the alleged offence. It is submitted that the petitioner is neither named in the FIR nor has any allegation been levelled against him by the complainant or any eyewitness. The FIR discloses allegations only against the principal accused, Prakash Yadav, who allegedly assaulted the injured with a knife. It is further submitted that, during the course of investigation, the petitioner was implicated solely on the ground that he was associated with the logistics/delivery process relating to the online purchase of the knife allegedly used in the commission of the offence. Except for such official association, the prosecution has failed to collect any material indicating that the petitioner had knowledge, intention, or reason to believe that the knife would be used for committing any offence. 7. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner neither participated in the alleged assault nor was he present at the place of occurrence. No overt act has been attributed to him in the FIR, the statements of witnesses, or the charge-sheet. The petitioner was merely discharging his official duties in the ordinary course of his employment, and mere association with the delivery or logistics process cannot attract criminal liability in the absence of the requisite mens rea. It is further submitted that the essential ingredients of Sections 25(1)(a) and 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 are completely absent insofar as the petitioner is concerned. There is no allegation or material to establish any conspiracy, common intention, intentional aid, or active participation on the part of the 5 petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. The prosecution case, even if accepted in its entirety, does not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that no incriminating article has been seized from the possession of the petitioner and there is no evidence connecting him with the alleged offence except his official role in the logistics chain. 8. It is argued that criminal liability cannot be fastened on the basis of mere suspicion, presumption, or vicarious liability unless specifically provided by statute. The continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, in the absence of any prima facie material, would amount to an abuse of the process of law and would result in grave miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel further submits that the present case squarely falls within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein it has been held that where the allegations made in the FIR or charge-sheet, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence, the High Court is justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, it is prayed that the FIR, charge-sheet, and all consequential criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 179/2026 for offences punishable under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 be quashed in the interest of justice. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the impugned FIR and the charge-sheet disclose a prima 6 facie case against the petitioner. It is contended that during the course of investigation, material was collected indicating the petitioner's involvement in the logistics and delivery process relating to the knife allegedly used in the commission of the offence. The investigating agency, after due investigation, found sufficient material to file the charge-sheet against the petitioner under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959. It is further submitted that the questions regarding the petitioner's knowledge, intention, and the extent of his involvement are disputed questions of fact which can only be adjudicated upon during trial on the basis of evidence. At the stage of considering a petition for quashing, the Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out and not to conduct a meticulous appreciation of the evidence. 10. Learned State counsel further submitted that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. Since the allegations in the charge-sheet disclose the commission of cognizable offences requiring a full-fledged trial, the present case does not warrant interference under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. It was, therefore, prayed that the petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 12. The legal position on the issue of quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, 7 FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.). 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of 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. & Ors reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Supreme Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 14. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has 8 authoritatively settled the scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The Apex Court has held that the power to quash criminal proceedings is required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the rarest of rare cases. It has been categorically observed that while considering a prayer for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR, nor can it appreciate the evidence or conduct a mini trial. The Court is only required to examine whether the allegations, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court further emphasized that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the threshold, that investigation into cognizable offences should ordinarily be permitted to proceed unhindered, and that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with great caution and self-restraint, save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in manifest miscarriage of justice. 15. 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 9 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 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. 16. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the FIR, the charge-sheet and the material collected during the course of investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is made out. 17. The contention of the petitioner that he was merely associated with the logistics/delivery process and had no knowledge or intention regarding the alleged use of the knife in the commission of the offence raises disputed questions of fact. Whether the petitioner had the requisite knowledge or intention, the nature and extent of his involvement, and whether the ingredients of the offences alleged are ultimately established, are all matters which can be adjudicated only on the basis of evidence led before the trial Court. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or conduct 10 a mini trial while exercising its inherent jurisdiction. 18. A perusal of the charge-sheet reveals that the investigating agency, after conducting investigation, has collected material which, according to it, prima facie connects the petitioner with the alleged offences and, on that basis, has filed the charge-sheet. At this stage, this Court is only required to examine whether the allegations and the material collected during investigation disclose a prima facie case. The correctness, reliability and evidentiary value of such material are matters to be tested during the course of trial. 19. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner, including Bhajan Lal (supra), do not advance his case. The present case does not fall within any of the exceptional categories warranting quashing of criminal proceedings at the threshold. On the contrary, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra) clearly mandate that the inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in proceedings seeking quashing of criminal prosecution. 20. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is satisfied that the allegations contained in the charge-sheet, along with the material collected during investigation, disclose a prima facie case requiring adjudication by the competent trial Court. No exceptional circumstance has been demonstrated to warrant interference under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Accordingly, the present 11 petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The learned trial Court shall proceed with the trial independently and uninfluenced by any observation contained in this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu