1 2026:CGHC:15470-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 955 of 2026 Nikhlesh Kumar Sahu S/o Bhikham Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Village- Bhendi Police Station Panduka, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station Panduka, District- Gariyabandh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Surbhi Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. N. K. Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06 .04.2026 1. Heard Ms. Surbhi Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. K. Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondent/ State. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.04.07 10:53:17 +0530 2 2. This petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the following reliefs:- “1. It is respectfully prayed that the entire records and the case diary pertaining to (1) the impugned chargesheet no. 97/2025 dated 12.11.2025 arising out of FIR No. 68/2025 registered at Police Station- Panduka, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) filed for offence u/s 22 (B) of NDPS Act, 1985 (2) the impugned Order dated 14.11.2025 taking cognizance of the offences by the trial Court against the petitioner under Sections 22 (B) of the NDPS Act, 1985, (4) the impugned order sheet of framing of charges dated 25.11.2025 & (3) the entire criminal proceedings that are undergoing in Special Session Case (NDPS) No. 210 of 2025 State of Chhattisgarh vs. Kaushal Patel & Anr. before the Court of learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Raipur (C.G.), may kindly be called from the concerned authorities. 2. It is respectfully prayed that (1) the impugned chargesheet no. 97/2025 dated 12.11.2025 arising out of FIR No. 68/2025 registered at Police Station Panduka, District Gariyaband (C.G.) filed for offence u/s 22 (B) of NDPS Act, 1985 (2) the impugned Order dated 14.11.2025 taking cognizance of the offences by the trial Court against the petitioner under Sections 22 (B) of the NDPS Act, 1985, (4) the impugned order sheet of framing of charges dated 25.11.2025 5 & & (3) the entire criminal proceedings that are undergoing in Special Session Case (NDPS) No. 210 of 2025 State of Chhattisgarh vs. Kaushal Patel & Anr. before the Court of learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Raipur (C.G.) may kindly be quashed/set aside, because they are 3 bad, illegal, and untenable in the eyes of law [See, Annexure P/1 (Colly.). 3. It is respectfully prayed that the any other criminal proceedings, if existing against the present petitioner, in connection with the impugned chargesheet no. 97/2025 filed for offences u/Ss. 22 (B) of NDPS Act, 1985 arising out of the impugned FIR No. 68/2025 registered at Police Station- Panduka, District-Gariyaband (C.G.) may kindly be quashed/set aside, because it is/are bad, illegal, and untenable in the eyes of law. 4. It is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass any other order in favor of the present petitioners, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice. 5. Cost of the petition.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.08.2025, acting on secret information, the police conducted a raid near village Kopra and apprehended co-accused Kaushal Patel from whose possession 50 tablets of Alprazolam were allegedly recovered, seized, and sealed, leading to registration of the offence, however, the present petitioner has been implicated on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused that he purchased the said tablets from the present petitioner, hence the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the impugned Charge-sheet No. 97/2025 dated 12.11.2025 arising out of FIR No. 68/2025 registered at Police Station Panduka, District 4 Gariyaband, the order dated 14.11.2025 taking cognizance, the order dated 25.11.2025 framing charges, and the entire criminal proceedings pending in Special Session Case (NDPS) No. 210 of 2025 are wholly illegal, arbitrary, and liable to be quashed, as the allegations against the petitioner are vague, inherently improbable, and unsupported by any legally admissible evidence. The petitioner has been falsely implicated solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of a co-accused, which has no evidentiary value in absence of any independent corroboration or recovery, and admittedly no contraband or incriminating material has been seized from the petitioner. The petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor present at the spot, and there is no independent witness or material connecting him with the alleged offence. Even if the entire prosecution case is taken at its face value, no offence under the NDPS Act is made out against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has clean antecedents, is not a habitual offender, and has already been granted bail, and his implication is mechanical and without application of mind, therefore, in view of the settled law laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604), the continuation of the proceedings amounts to gross abuse of the process of law and is liable to be quashed in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that the present petition is liable to be dismissed, as the impugned 5 charge-sheet, order of cognizance, and order framing charges have been passed strictly in accordance with law upon due consideration of the material collected during investigation. The allegations against the petitioner are supported by the memorandum statement of the co-accused, which has led to discovery of relevant facts and forms part of the chain of circumstances connecting the petitioner with the offence. After investigation charge-sheet has been filed. The petitioner is charged for the offence under Section 22 (b) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act. 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 impugned FIR and document annexed with the petition. 7. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings 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. 6 8. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), 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 F.I.R./Charge-sheet, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./Charge-sheet. The power under Section 528 of BNSS/ 482 Cr.P.C. 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 F.I.R/Charge-sheet. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 528 of BNSS/ 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R./Charge-sheet disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 9. Upon perusal of the brief facts of the case, the contents of the FIR/Charge-sheet, and the submissions advanced on behalf of both parties, it is evident that a prima facie case is made out against the accused, inasmuch as the Charge-sheet and prosecution story clearly disclose recovery of contraband Alprazolam tablets from the possession of the co-accused pursuant to a duly conducted raid based on credible information and he disclosed that the said contrabnd tablets have been purchased from the petitioner. The petitioner is charged with the offence under Section 22(b) read with Section 29 of NDPS Act and the investigation has been carried out following the prescribed procedure under the NDPS Act. Further, the material collected during investigation, including seizure, panchnama, and other contemporaneous evidence, cannot be meticulously examined at this 7 stage of proceedings under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S, moreover, the grounds raised by the petitioner pertain to disputed questions of fact, admissibility, and appreciation of evidence, which are matters to be adjudicated during trial and in our humble opinion that it cannot be said that no offence whatsoever is disclosed against the petitioner and in the light of judgment passed by the Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we do not find any good ground for interference as it cannot be said that no offence is disclosed. 10. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika