1 CGHC010270962026 2026:CGHC:32185-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1949 of 2026 Shyam Sundar Agrawal S/o Late Rameshwar Das Agrawal Aged About 52 Years (Now 58 Years), R/o Kachahari Chowk Sakti, Ward No. 16, Police Station - Sakti, District - Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Baradwar, District - Sakti Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 28 .07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State/ respondent. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.07.29 11:30:28 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has filed the present CrMP under Section 482 of CrPC, and prayed for the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that looking to the abovementioned facts and grounds this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and the supplementary charge-sheet bearing Charge-sheet No. 05A/2015 dated 10.01.2026 under Section 407, 411, 420, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and order dated 13.01.2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) whereby the cognizance has been taken and the Criminal Case No. 21/2015 against the present applicant may kindly be quashed and the present applicant may kindly be discharged from all the offences, in the interest of justice.” 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the prosecution case arises out of Crime No. 329/2014 registered on the allegation of illegal diversion and misappropriation of coal from the applicant's licensed coal depot. Initially, the police filed Charge-sheet No. 05/2015 only against four accused persons, namely the driver, clerk and lessees of the depot, while the present applicant, though described as the license holder, was neither arrayed as an accused nor shown as an absconder. The applicant was formally arrested in the year 2018 pursuant to an order granting anticipatory bail, yet no supplementary charge-sheet was filed against him for more than seven years. In the meanwhile, all four charge-sheeted accused were tried and acquitted by the learned Trial Court vide judgments dated 13.04.2021 and 14.12.2023 on the ground 3 that the prosecution failed to establish the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. Despite the acquittal of the principal accused and without collecting any fresh or incriminating material against the applicant, the investigating agency filed a supplementary charge-sheet against him on 10.01.2026, upon which cognizance was taken on 13.01.2026. Aggrieved by the continuation of criminal proceedings based on stale allegations and in the absence of any new evidence, the applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing of the supplementary charge- sheet, cognizance order and all consequential proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned supplementary charge-sheet is a patent abuse of the process of law, having been filed more than eleven years after the registration of the FIR and over seven years after the applicant's formal arrest, without there being any fresh evidence collected during further investigation. It is contended that the original charge-sheet did not array the applicant as an accused nor describe him as an absconder, despite the investigating agency being fully aware of his status as the license holder of the coal depot from the very inception of the investigation. It is further submitted that the very foundation of the prosecution case has already collapsed inasmuch as all the principal accused, namely the driver, clerk and lessees, who were alleged to have actively participated in the commission of the offences, have been acquitted by the learned Trial Court after full-fledged trials on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, continuation of the prosecution against the applicant, whose alleged role is only that of the owner/license holder 4 and who was not present at the spot, is wholly unsustainable. Learned counsel further submits that the supplementary charge-sheet is merely an attempt to revive a prosecution which has already failed against the principal offenders and, therefore, amounts to misuse of the power of further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure [corresponding to Section 193(9) of the BNSS]. It is also argued that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate mechanically took cognizance without considering the unexplained delay, the absence of fresh material, and the effect of the acquittal of all co-accused. Accordingly, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, may be pleased to allow the petition and quash the supplementary charge-sheet and all consequential criminal proceedings against the applicant in order to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of the Court. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the impugned supplementary charge-sheet has been filed after conducting further investigation in exercise of powers under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure [corresponding to Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023], which is legally permissible. It is contended that the petitioner, being the license holder and owner of the coal depot, was connected with the alleged offences and the material collected during investigation discloses a prima facie case against him. The acquittal of the co- accused does not automatically entitle the applicant to quashing of the proceedings, as his role is required to be examined independently during trial. It is a settled principle of law that where the FIR discloses 5 the commission of a cognizable offence, the investigating agency is duty-bound to conduct a fair and complete investigation and the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, ought not to stifle a legitimate prosecution at its inception. Thus, at this stage, no interference is warranted in view of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021 (M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others) and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. The legal position on the issue of quashing of charge sheet is well- settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, 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 528 of BNSS/482 of the Cr.P.C. 8. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made 6 in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.) is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of B.N.S.S.), only has to consider whether or not the allegations of FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. Further, while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (now 528 of B.N.S.S.) , final conclusions are as under:- “i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevantprovisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability 7 or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not 8 deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be 9 applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps” either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/ disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or 10 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order. xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of “no coercive steps to be adopted” within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by “no coercive steps to be adopted” as the term “no coercive steps to be adopted” can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied.” 9. Very recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025), while reiterating the settled principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings, has once again emphasized that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised with great caution, circumspection and only in exceptional circumstances. 10. A perusal of the original final report reveals that the investigating officer had specifically recorded that investigation regarding the involvement of the present applicant, being the license holder of the coal depot, was still in progress and that a supplementary charge-sheet would be filed after completion of further investigation. Thus, the filing of the 11 supplementary charge-sheet cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or contrary to law. The acquittal of the co-accused does not, by itself, extinguish the prosecution against the present applicant, whose alleged role is required to be examined independently on the basis of the material collected during further investigation. 11. After having gone through the material available on record, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the present applicant. A perusal of the final report dated 06.01.2015 reveals that the investigating officer had specifically recorded that investigation regarding the involvement of the present applicant, being the license holder of S.M.G. Unique Coal Depot, was still in progress and that a supplementary charge-sheet would be filed after completion of further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Pursuant thereto, the investigating agency carried out further investigation and filed the supplementary charge-sheet against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 407, 411, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of cognizable offences and, therefore, require adjudication by the trial Court. At this stage, the defence raised by the applicant, including the plea that he was merely the license holder of the coal depot, that the co-accused persons have already been acquitted, that there was delay in filing the supplementary charge-sheet or that no fresh material was collected during further investigation, cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as this Court is only required to ascertain whether the material collected during investigation prima facie discloses the commission of an offence. In the 12 light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra) and other settled principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., we do not find any good ground for interference, as it cannot be said that no prima facie offence is made out against the petitioners. 12. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. The learned trial Court is directed to make all endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika