1 CGHC010302132026 2026:CGHC:34395-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2060 of 2026 Shravan Singh Sandhu S/o Late Sukhdev Singh Sandhu Aged About 35 Years R/o Punjab Cargo Movers, Shop No. 11, Atari Road, Nandan Van Road, Tatibandh, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Superintendent Of Police, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Station House Officer, Police Station Dharsiva, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - S.K.A. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Company Siltara, Through Aakash Agrawal, S/o Late Kaushal Kishore Agrawal, Aged About 20 Years, R/o C-402, Harshit Tower, Panchdham Mandir, Tatibandh, Amanaka, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Amrit Singh Owner Of Khalsa Trailor Services, Office At Shop No. 6, Bhardhwaj Complex, Transport Nagar, Rawabhata, Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Dilbaag Singh An Agent Of Amrit Singh, Office At Shop No.6, Bhardhwaj Complex, Transport Nagar, Rawabhata, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Raza Ali, Advocate For Respondents No.1 and 2/State : Ms.Anusha Naik, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.08.07 10:15:04 +0530 2 Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06.08.2026 1. Since respondent No. 3, the complainant company, was duly represented through learned counsel in CRMP Nos. 1477 of 2024 and 1469 of 2024, and the said petitions have already been allowed by this Court whereby the FIR lodged at its instance stands quashed, no useful purpose would be served by issuing a fresh notice to respondent No. 3 in the present petition. Accordingly, issuance of fresh notice to respondent No. 3 is dispensed with. 2. Heard Mr.Raza Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms.Anusha Naik, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 2/State. 3. 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):- “It is therefore most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to the case from the respondent no.2 police station, quash the FIR No.263/2024 against the petitioner registered at police station Dharsiva, on 18.04.2024 under Section 407, 34 of the Code of Indian Penal, 1973, as it is false and made with ulterior motive and further direct the police authorities to take action against the respondent no.3 to 5 or pass any other order which may 3 deem fit to this Hon'ble Court looking to the facts and circumstance of the matter, in the interest of justice.” 4. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected from the FIR, is that respondent No. 3/complainant is engaged in the business of transportation and had entrusted the transportation of iron rods (Sariya) to the accused persons. It is alleged that on 21.03.2024, the complainant placed an order for transportation of approximately 40 tons of iron rods through one Malik Major Singh by vehicle/truck bearing registration No. PB-06-AG-1414, which was to be delivered at Eastern Coal Field Ltd., Bardhaman, West Bengal. It is further alleged that the complainant also placed another order for transportation of approximately 50 tons of iron rods through the vehicle/truck bearing registration No. CG-04-LV-7950, belonging to Gurvinder Singh Bhatti, which was to be delivered at Tezpur, Assam. As per the allegations, the said trucks were being driven by the petitioner and another driver respectively. 5. The prosecution alleges that after the iron rods were loaded and the vehicles proceeded for transportation, the accused persons failed to deliver the said goods at the respective destinations. It is alleged that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, dishonestly misappropriated the entrusted goods and thereby caused wrongful loss to the complainant. On the basis of the complaint lodged by respondent No. 3, FIR No. 263/2024 was registered at the concerned Police Station against the petitioner and other accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 407 and 34 of the 4 Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, the police conducted proceedings relating to the alleged missing goods and seized the iron rods from the vehicles/place where they were found. The prosecution has relied upon the FIR, statements of witnesses, seizure documents, and other material collected during investigation to substantiate the allegations against the accused persons. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition has been filed under the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court seeking quashing of FIR No. 263/2024 registered at Police Station Dharsiva for the offences punishable under Sections 407 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as the same has been registered against the petitioner on the basis of false, frivolous and baseless allegations with an ulterior motive. It is submitted that the petitioner is merely a driver working under Gurvinder Singh Bhatti, owner of Punjab Cargo Movers, and has acted only in accordance with the instructions given by his employer. The petitioner had no direct dealing or contractual relationship with respondent No. 3/complainant. The complainant had never placed any order with Punjab Cargo Movers for transportation of iron rods, nor was any material ever entrusted to the petitioner by the complainant. 7. Learned counsel further submits that the actual transaction was between respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 5 with Gurvinder Singh Bhatti, owner of Punjab Cargo Movers. The petitioner was assigned the work of transporting the material from S.K.A. Ispat, Raipur to Lift & Shift, 5 Raipur, which was duly performed by him. The transportation charges were also paid by respondent No. 4 to Punjab Cargo Movers through online transactions, which clearly establishes the nature of the transaction. It is contended that the allegations made in the FIR are inherently false and misleading, as the complainant has attempted to recover the alleged loss of non-delivery of goods from the petitioner, despite the fact that the petitioner was neither the consignee nor the person responsible for final delivery of the goods. The petitioner had only performed his assigned duty as a driver and there is no material whatsoever to establish any dishonest intention or criminal breach of trust on his part. Learned counsel also submits that the investigation itself reveals that the alleged iron rods were unloaded at Lift & Shift, Raipur and thereafter were again loaded into other vehicles after a period of time. The crane bill dated 01.04.2024 clearly demonstrates that the unloading and subsequent loading of the material was carried out at the instance of respondent No. 4. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for any subsequent act committed by other persons. 8. It is submitted that respondent No. 4, who was allegedly involved in the entire transaction and against whom serious allegations have been raised, has not even been made an accused in the present FIR. The petitioner has been unnecessarily implicated only because he was the driver of the vehicle. The action of the investigating authorities in proceeding against the petitioner, despite the availability of documents showing his limited role, amounts to misuse of the criminal process. 6 Learned counsel further submitted that the co-accused persons, namely Gurvinder Singh Bhatti and Major Singh, had already approached this Hon’ble Court seeking quashing of the same FIR and their petitions have been allowed vide order dated 10.02.2026. The petitioner stands on an identical footing, being only a driver working under Gurvinder Singh Bhatti, and therefore is also entitled to similar relief. It is further submitted that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of law, as the essential ingredients of Section 407 of the IPC are not made out against him. There is no allegation or material to show that the petitioner was entrusted with the goods by the complainant or that he dishonestly misappropriated or converted the same for his own use. 9. Learned counsel places reliance upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein it has been held that where criminal proceedings are initiated with an ulterior motive, mala fide intention, or where the allegations do not disclose commission of any offence, the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of law. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly exercise its inherent jurisdiction and quash FIR No. 263/2024 registered at Police Station Dharsiva against the petitioner for offences under Sections 407 and 34 of the IPC, in the interest of justice. 10. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 2/State opposes the petition and 7 submits that the FIR has been registered on the basis of specific allegations regarding non-delivery and misappropriation of entrusted iron rods. It is submitted that the petitioner was the driver of the vehicle involved in transportation of the goods and his role can be examined only during the course of investigation and trial. It is further submitted that the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 407 and 34 of the IPC and, therefore, the proceedings should not be quashed at the initial stage. The defence raised by the petitioner involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 B.N.S.S.). Accordingly, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the petition. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 12. Upon consideration of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the present petitioner stands on an identical footing with the petitioners in CRMP No.1477/2024 and CRMP No.1469/2024, wherein this Court has already exercised its inherent jurisdiction and quashed the impugned FIR qua the said petitioners. 13. It is not in dispute that the present petitioner was working as a driver under Gurvinder Singh Bhatti, owner of Punjab Cargo Movers, and his role was confined only to transportation of the goods as per the instructions given by his employer. The material placed on record 8 indicates that the petitioner had transported the goods from S.K.A. Ispat, Raipur to Lift & Shift, Raipur, and there is no specific allegation or material showing that the petitioner had received the goods from respondent No.3/complainant for delivery at the alleged final destination or that he had dishonestly misappropriated or converted the said goods for his own use. 14. The allegations in the FIR, even if taken at their face value, do not prima facie establish the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 407 of the IPC against the present petitioner. The dispute appears to arise out of the subsequent transactions and arrangements between the concerned parties, and the criminal liability of the petitioner cannot be fastened merely on the ground that he was the driver of the vehicle used for transportation. 15. This Court further finds that the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from the case of the co-accused persons, namely Gurvinder Singh Bhatti and Mejar Singh, whose petitions for quashing of the same FIR have already been allowed by this Court vide order dated 10.02.2026 passed in CRMP No.1469/2024 and CRMP No.1477/2024. The present petitioner, being similarly situated and having a more limited role as a driver, is also entitled to the same benefit. 16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of law. The case falls within the parameters laid 9 down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), and the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deserves to be exercised. 17. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.263/2024 registered at Police Station Dharsiva, District Raipur, for offence punishable under Section 407/34 of the IPC, is hereby quashed insofar as it relates to the present petitioner. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu