1 CGHC010443912025 2026:CGHC:31428-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3158 of 2025 1 - Bhesh Lal Bandhe S/o Prem Kumar Bandhe Aged About 27 Years R/o - House No. 186, Ward No. 13 Village - Bhanpuri, P.S. - Lalbagh Gramin, Tahsil And District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) .. Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Lalbagh Gramin, District - Rajnandgaon, C.G. 2 - Vinod Kumar Bandhe S/o Late Gopichand Bandhe Aged About 26 Years R/o Village - Bhanpuri, P.S. Lalbagh Gramin, Tahsil And District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bodhani, Advocate, through V.C. along with Mr. Ankush Soni, Advocate. For State/Respondent No. 1: Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 23/07/2026 1. Heard Mr. Ravi Kumar Bodhani, Advocate, appeared through V.C. along with Mr. Ankush Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Govt. Advocate, for the State/Respondent No.1, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tahkur, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2. ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.07.28 10:48:13 +0530 2 2. The petitioners have filed the present petition with the following prayer: "A. That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and Kindly be pleased to quash the chargesheet bearing no.431/2024 dated 13.12.2024 (Annexure P/1) under Section 304A of IPC in FIR No 488/2024 Dated. 31/10/2024 filed by P.S- Lalbagh, District-Rajnandgaon Filed against the Petitioner. B. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash order dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure P/2) taking cognizance of the Final Report No. 431/2024 dated 13.12.2024. C. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash consequential criminal proceedings initiated in criminal case no. 9793/2024 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh against the petitioner for the offence under section 304A of the IPC in exercise of powers under section 528 of the BNSS, in the interest of Justice. D. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the Petitioners, in the interest of justice. An affidavit in support of is filed herewith.” 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner, a farmer and resident of Village Bhanpuri, District Rajnandgaon, has filed the present petition seeking quashment of FIR No. 488/2024 dated 31.10.2024 registered at Police Station Lalbagh Gramin, District Rajnandgaon, for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC, along with the consequential charge-sheet and criminal proceedings pending before the learned JMFC, Rajnandgaon. It is the petitioner's case that on 14.06.2024, while carrying out agricultural work, the deceased Gopilal accidentally sustained injuries when his leg got 3 entangled in the plough attached to the tractor and subsequently died during treatment on 29.06.2024. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 2 had initially informed the police during the merg inquiry that the incident occurred due to the deceased's own negligence; however, he subsequently changed his version and lodged a fresh complaint alleging that the deceased had fallen from a moving tractor, on the basis of which the impugned FIR came to be registered. It is further contended that the contemporaneous records, including the merg inquiry papers obtained under the Right to Information Act, support the original version of the incident, yet the police filed the charge- sheet against the petitioner without properly considering the said material. The petitioner further submits that respondent No. 2 has also filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation, and therefore the criminal proceedings have been initiated with an ulterior motive and amount to an abuse of the process of law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the impugned FIR has been lodged with an ulterior motive. It is contended that immediately after the incident, respondent No. 2 himself informed the police during the merg inquiry that the deceased had sustained injuries due to his own negligence when his leg got entangled in the plough attached to the tractor; however, subsequently, respondent No. 2 changed his version and lodged a fresh complaint alleging that the deceased had fallen from a moving tractor, only with a view to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, on the basis of which the impugned FIR under Section 304-A of the IPC came to be registered. It is further submitted that the contemporaneous records collected during the merg inquiry support the petitioner's version, but the investigating 4 agency ignored the same and mechanically filed the charge-sheet without conducting a fair and proper investigation. It is argued that the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides and constitute an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, this Court may be pleased to quash the impugned FIR, the consequential charge-sheet and all further criminal proceedings arising therefrom in order to secure the ends of justice. 5. He would also submit that, challenging the claim application filed by the respondents, the Insurance Company has instituted Civil Suit No. 271/2025 before this Court, which is pending consideration. It is further submitted that, by order dated 14.10.2025, the learned Single Judge has stayed the further proceedings of Motor Accident Claim Case No. 69/2025. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 2 oppose the petition and submit that the impugned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint disclosing commission of a cognizable offence. It is contended that the investigating agency conducted a fair and lawful investigation, recorded the statements of the witnesses, collected the relevant material and, upon finding sufficient prima facie evidence, filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court. It is further submitted that the learned JMFC, after due consideration of the police report and the material collected during investigation, has rightly taken cognizance of the offence and, therefore, no illegality or infirmity is made out warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 7. It is further submitted that the allegations regarding false implication, 5 mala fides, change of version by respondent No. 2 and the plea that the complaint was lodged only to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act are disputed questions of fact, which can be adjudicated only upon appreciation of evidence during trial. According to the respondents, the petitioner is seeking to establish his defence at the threshold by relying upon certain documents, which is impermissible while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. Since the charge-sheet has already been filed and the learned trial Court has taken cognizance on the basis of sufficient material collected during investigation, the continuation of the criminal proceedings cannot be said to be an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, it is 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 documents annexed with this petition. 9. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the impugned FIR has been registered on the basis of a subsequent version of the incident, whereas the contemporaneous records prepared during the merg inquiry disclose that the deceased had sustained injuries when his leg got entangled in the plough attached to the tractor during agricultural work. According to the petitioner, despite the availability of such material, the investigating agency ignored the same and filed the charge-sheet on the basis of the subsequently changed version. On the other hand, the respondents contend that the FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint disclosing commission of a cognizable offence and, after a fair investigation, sufficient material was collected against the petitioner, whereupon the charge-sheet was filed and cognizance was rightly taken by the learned trial Court. It is further contended that the issues raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, which can only be 6 adjudicated during the course of trial. 10. Thus, the question which falls for consideration before this Court is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. It is well settled that although the inherent powers of the High Court are to be exercised sparingly, the same can be invoked where the materials placed on record disclose that permitting the prosecution to continue would result in miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the Court. The scope and ambit of the exercise of such jurisdiction have been authoritatively explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, to which reference may now be made. 11. At this juncture it would be apposite to refer the settled legal principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down the categories of cases where criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed including the cases where allegations do not prima facie constitute any offence or inherently improbable and it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 102 and 103 that - "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and 7 reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are 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. (2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable 8 on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which criminal proceeding is a instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." 12. In the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and Another, (2019) 11 SCC 706 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 14 and 16 of its judgment that:- “14. First, we would like to deal with the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 2 that once the charge-sheet is filed, petition for quashing of FIR is untenable. We do not see any merit in this submission, 9 keeping in mind the position of this Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat [(2011) 7 SCC 59 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23]. In Joseph Salvaraj A. [(2011) 7 SCC 59 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23], this Court while deciding the question whether the High Court could entertain the Section 482 petition for quashing of FIR, when the charge- sheet was filed by the police during the pendency of the Section 482 petition, observed : (SCC p. 63, para 16) "16. Thus, from the general conspectus of the various sections under which the appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even prima facie from the complainant's FIR. Even if the charge-sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge [Joesph Saivaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, 2007 SCC OnLine Guj 365] could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant's FIR, charge- sheet, documents, etc. or not." 15. Even otherwise it must be remembered that the provision invoked by the accused before the High Court is Section 482 CrPC and that this Court is hearing an appeal from an order under Section 482 CrPC. Section 482 CrPC reads as follows:- “482. Saving of inherent powers of the High Court.—Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 16. There is nothing in the words of this section which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent 10 the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court [G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636, para 7 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513. Umesh Kumar v. State of A.P., (2013) 10 SCC 591, para 20 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 338 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 237] . Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced and the allegations have materialised into a charge-sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge-sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court.” 13. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the contemporaneous documents prepared immediately after the incident, including the merg inquiry papers, prima facie indicate that the deceased sustained injuries when his leg got entangled in the plough attached to the tractor during agricultural work. However, the impugned FIR came to be registered subsequently on the basis of a materially different version alleging that the deceased had fallen from a moving tractor. Significantly, the prosecution has not placed any convincing material explaining the departure from the earliest version recorded during the merg inquiry. The petitioner has also brought on record that respondent No. 2 has instituted proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation, and the Insurance Company has challenged the maintainability of the said claim before this Court. These circumstances lend support to the petitioner's contention that the subsequent version was introduced for an oblique purpose. In such a situation, permitting the criminal 11 prosecution to continue, despite the apparent inconsistency in the prosecution case, would amount to allowing the criminal process to be used for a collateral purpose rather than for the administration of criminal justice. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case falls within the category of exceptional cases where exercise of inherent jurisdiction is warranted to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. The continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, on the basis of the subsequent version which is prima facie inconsistent with the material collected during the merg inquiry, would serve no useful purpose and would result in unnecessary harassment to the petitioner. 15. Accordingly, the impugned Charge-sheet No. 431/2024 dated 13.12.2024, the order dated 19.12.2024 taking cognizance thereof, and the consequential criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 9793/2024 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon, arising out of FIR No. 488/2024 registered at Police Station Lalbagh Gramin, District Rajnandgaon, for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC, deserve to be, and are hereby, quashed. 16. Consequently, the present petition stands allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok