1 CGHC010249902025 2026:CGHC:37333-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2137 of 2025 Himanshu Shekhar Ray S/o. Shri Sudhanshu Shekhar Ray, Aged About 73 Years R/o A-3, Riya Apartment, Tikrapara, Bilaspur, Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Superintendent Of Police, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 3. Station House Officer, Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 4. Ayesha Jospeh D/o Late Samson Joseph Aged About 25 Years R/o 4-B Street No. 8 Vivekanand Nagar Kohka Bhilai, Supela, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Shristi Upadhyay, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Ramsajiwan, Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.08.21 10:46:26 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 20 .08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Shristi Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3 and Mr. Ramsajiwan, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 4. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “1. That Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR No. 26 of 2022 dated 15.01.2022, registered at Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara for offence punishable under Section 279 & 304A of IPC (Annexure P/3). 2. That Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Final Report/Charge-sheet dated 23.05.2022 No. 174 of 2022 submitted before JMFC First Class Bemetara for offence under Section 279 & 304A of IPC (Annexure P/4). 3. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 23.11.2022 whereby learned JMFC First Class Bemetara have taken cognizance in Criminal Case No. 2158 of 2022 “State of Chhattisgarh vs Himanshu Shekhar Ray” pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class Bemetara (Annexure P/5). 3 4. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the charge framed against the petitioner offence under Section 279 & 304A of IPC in Criminal Case No. 2158 of 2022 on 24.11.2023 in the matter of “State of Chhattisgarh vs. Himanshu Shekhar Ray” pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class Bemetara (Annexure P/8) Or in Alternative without prejudice to the above relief in alternate petitioner seek the following relief. 5. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Judicial Magistrate First Class Bemetara to decide the Criminal Case No. 2158 of 2022 within 6 months as the petitioner is a senior citizen and matter is pending since 2022, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the entire prosecution against the petitioner arises out of a motor vehicle accident dated 08.01.2022 and that the prosecution case, even if taken at its highest, does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC against the petitioner. It is contended that the material collected during investigation does not establish that the petitioner was driving the vehicle either rashly or negligently or that any such act on his part was the proximate cause of the death of the deceased. He further submitted that the manner in which the occurrence was initially reported assumes considerable significance. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner lodged Crime No. 10/2022 at Police Station Nandghat, alleging that while he was proceeding from Raipur towards Bilaspur, a cow suddenly 4 came on the National Highway near Village Akoli, compelling him to apply brakes, whereafter his vehicle was hit from behind by vehicle bearing registration No. CG 07 MB 3819, driven by the deceased. According to the petitioner, the impact caused damage to his vehicle and the deceased was himself driving at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. 4. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that the aforesaid FIR was lodged immediately after the occurrence and therefore constitutes the earliest version of the incident. In contrast, the FIR subsequently lodged on 15.01.2022, i.e. after a delay of about eight days, attributes negligence to the petitioner on an altogether different version. According to the subsequent FIR, the deceased was allegedly driving his vehicle when he was informed by some unknown person that the petitioner had overtaken his vehicle and suddenly applied brakes, resulting in the collision. It is urged that the delay, coupled with the material improvement in the prosecution story, assumes significance while examining whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve the ends of justice. He further submitted that the prosecution itself does not have a consistent and direct account of the occurrence. In her initial statement recorded during investigation, the complainant did not disclose the registration number of the petitioner's vehicle or the alleged manner in which the petitioner had overtaken the deceased and suddenly applied brakes. On the contrary, she stated that she had received information regarding the accident from one Prakash Sahu, who had allegedly answered the mobile phone of the deceased and 5 informed her that her father had met with an accident and was being taken to hospital. It is submitted that subsequently the prosecution case was altered and the petitioner was specifically attributed the act of overtaking and suddenly applying brakes. 5. Learned Senior Advocate further contended that this subsequent version becomes doubtful particularly because the persons whose statements were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC had admittedly not witnessed the accident. The statements of Gishel, M.D. Kumar Kunjam and Arnold K. Kunjam, as relied upon by the prosecution, are essentially based upon information allegedly conveyed to them by the complainant and are therefore not statements of persons who had actually seen the occurrence. The person, namely Prakash Sahu, whose name appeared in the complainant's initial version as the person who had informed her about the accident, was also not examined so as to establish the source and authenticity of the information allegedly received by her. He also contended that there is no independent eyewitness identified by the investigating agency who has stated that the petitioner was driving his vehicle rashly or negligently, that he had overtaken the vehicle of the deceased, or that he had suddenly applied brakes in a manner endangering human life. In a prosecution under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC, the mere fact that an accident occurred and a person died cannot, by itself, establish rashness or negligence on the part of the petitioner. The prosecution must have material demonstrating the specific rash or negligent act attributable to the accused and its causal connection with the death. 6 6. It is argued by the learned Senior Advocate that the physical circumstances of the accident, as disclosed by the earliest FIR, also cannot be ignored. The petitioner's specific case is that he was compelled to stop his vehicle because a cow suddenly came onto the highway and that the vehicle of the deceased thereafter struck the petitioner's stationary vehicle from behind. If the petitioner's vehicle had already stopped and the collision occurred from the rear, the prosecution was required to place cogent material before the Court demonstrating how, despite these circumstances, the petitioner was responsible for the accident and death. No such material, according to the petitioner, was collected during investigation. He also submitted that the investigating agency proceeded against the petitioner without properly investigating the earlier Crime No. 10/2022 lodged by him against the deceased. The petitioner had immediately brought before the police the very circumstances which, according to him, resulted in the accident. However, instead of fairly examining both versions and collecting independent evidence concerning the manner of collision, the investigation culminated in a charge-sheet against the petitioner principally on the basis of the subsequent version and statements of persons who had not witnessed the occurrence. 7. Learned Senior Advocate submits that even if the charge-sheet and the material collected therewith are taken at their face value, they do not disclose the foundational facts necessary to constitute an offence under Section 279 or Section 304-A of the IPC. The prosecution material does not furnish a direct account of any rash or negligent act of 7 the petitioner and does not establish that the death of the deceased was the result of any act of the petitioner amounting to criminal negligence. The continuation of the prosecution in such circumstances, it is submitted, would amount to permitting a criminal trial to proceed in the absence of the basic material necessary to sustain the charges. 8. It is next contended by the learned Senior Advocate that the subsequent criminal prosecution is also required to be considered in the background of the motor accident claim proceedings. The complainant had instituted a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and compensation was awarded in Claim Case No. 679/2022. According to the petitioner, the subsequent FIR and prosecution were relied upon in the claim proceedings. The petitioner submits that the delayed criminal accusation, the material improvement in the version of the complainant and the absence of any independent eyewitness assume greater significance when examined in their entirety and demonstrate that the criminal prosecution cannot be permitted to continue merely because a charge-sheet came to be filed. He further stated that the learned Magistrate proceeded to take cognizance and thereafter framed charges without properly examining whether the material collected during investigation disclosed the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged. It is urged that the power to take cognizance or frame a charge cannot be exercised mechanically where the prosecution material, even if accepted in its entirety, fails to disclose the commission of the alleged offences by the petitioner. 8 9. Learned Senior Advocate places particular emphasis on the subsequent progress of the criminal case. Cognizance was taken in November 2022 and the charges were subsequently framed in November 2023. Thereafter, the matter was repeatedly fixed for prosecution evidence, but despite several opportunities, the prosecution could not examine even a single witness. The complainant, who is cited as a prosecution witness, has also not entered the witness box. Thus, the criminal proceedings have remained pending for a considerable period without any substantive progress in the trial. He also submitted that the petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 73 years and is a Doctor by profession residing at Bilaspur. He is required to undertake a journey of approximately 200 kilometres on a round-trip basis to attend the proceedings at Bemetara, causing considerable physical hardship and disruption to his professional activities. The petitioner has nevertheless continued to face the proceedings for more than two and a half years from the date of cognizance, while the prosecution has failed to examine even one witness. He would submit that the right to a speedy trial is an integral facet of the guarantee contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is not seeking termination of the proceedings merely on the ground of delay; rather, the prolonged pendency is being urged in conjunction with the inherent weaknesses in the prosecution case, absence of direct evidence regarding rashness or negligence, material inconsistencies in the complainant's version, failure to investigate the earlier FIR and the repeated inability of the prosecution to commence meaningful evidence. 9 10. It is further pointed out by the learned Senior Advocate that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court seeking quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings. During the pendency of that petition, charges came to be framed and, therefore, the petition was withdrawn with liberty to avail an appropriate remedy afresh. The earlier petition having been dismissed with such liberty, the present petition has been filed after the subsequent developments in the criminal trial and is thus maintainable in the circumstances placed before the Court. He further submits that the jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is intended to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. Where the allegations and the material collected by the investigating agency, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offences alleged, or where continuation of the prosecution would result in an abuse of the process of law, this Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction. The present case, according to the petitioner, falls within that exceptional category. 11. It is finally submitted by the learned Senior Advocate that the petitioner has already suffered the consequences of a criminal prosecution for several years despite the absence of any direct eyewitness account or other reliable material demonstrating rashness or negligence on his part. The prosecution has not been able to substantiate the basic allegation even by commencing its evidence despite repeated opportunities. In the totality of the circumstances— namely, the immediate lodging of the petitioner's FIR, the subsequent delayed FIR, the material discrepancy between the initial and 10 subsequent versions, the absence of an eyewitness, failure to examine the person from whom the complainant allegedly received the information, non-investigation of the earlier FIR, and the prolonged and ineffective pendency of the trial—it is submitted that continuation of Criminal Case No. 2158/2022 would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of law. 12. On the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior Advocate prays that this Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction and quash the FIR in Crime No. 26/2022, the consequential charge-sheet, the order taking cognizance and the subsequent criminal proceedings, including the charges framed against the petitioner for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC, and thereby secure the ends of justice. 13. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the present petition deserves to be dismissed as the investigation has been completed and a charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. The material collected during investigation prima facie establishes the allegations of rash and negligent driving resulting in the death of the deceased. He further submitted that the petitioner's contentions regarding the manner of accident, correctness of the site map, delay in lodging the FIR, alleged contradictions in the statements of witnesses and the manner in which the investigation was conducted are matters which require appreciation of evidence and cannot be conclusively examined in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. 14. Learned State counsel further contended that the learned 11 Magistrate, upon consideration of the material available on record, has taken cognizance and framed charges against the petitioner. No manifest illegality, perversity or abuse of the process of Court has been demonstrated so as to warrant interference by this Court at this stage. As regards the delay in trial, the State submits that the petitioner may seek appropriate directions before the learned trial Court for expeditious disposal of the case. Mere pendency of the trial or absence of prosecution witnesses on certain dates does not, in the facts of the present case, render the prosecution itself illegal or warrant quashing of the proceedings. 15. Learned State counsel, therefore, submits that the prosecution has disclosed a prima facie case against the petitioner and the disputed questions of fact and evidentiary issues ought to be left for determination by the trial Court. Accordingly, the petition may kindly be dismissed and the criminal proceedings be permitted to continue in accordance with law. 16. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 submits that the present petition seeks appreciation of disputed questions of fact, which cannot be undertaken in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. The prosecution case, as reflected from the FIR, statements recorded during investigation, site map and charge-sheet, prima facie discloses that the petitioner overtook the vehicle of the deceased and suddenly applied brakes, resulting in the collision and fatal injuries to the deceased. He further submitted that the delay of about eight days in 12 lodging the FIR is duly explained by the circumstances. Respondent No.4 was informed about the accident, reached CIMS, Bilaspur and thereafter, following the death and funeral of her father, lodged the FIR. Such delay, in the facts of the case, cannot by itself render the prosecution version false. 17. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 further stated that the petitioner's reliance upon the earlier FIR lodged by him, the alleged contradictions in the statements and the alleged non-examination of particular witnesses are matters of evidence. The truthfulness of the rival versions and credibility of witnesses can be tested only during trial. At this stage, the Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or undertake a detailed appreciation of the evidence. He also submitted that the allegation that the petitioner ought to have taken the deceased to the hospital, rather than lodging an FIR, is also a disputed factual issue. The circumstances immediately after the accident are required to be established by evidence and cannot furnish a ground for quashing the proceedings at the threshold. He also submits that the award of compensation in favour of respondent No. 4 does not bar or extinguish the criminal liability of the petitioner. Compensation proceedings and criminal proceedings operate in different fields, and therefore the petitioner cannot rely upon the award as a ground for quashing the criminal case. 18. Learned counsel submits that the learned Magistrate has already considered the material collected during investigation and has 13 proceeded against the petitioner. The charge-sheet contains sufficient prima facie material regarding rash and negligent driving. The petitioner's age and the alleged delay in trial may be considered by the learned trial Court by granting appropriate relief or expediting the proceedings, but they do not justify quashing a prosecution which otherwise discloses a prima facie offence. Thus, it is submitted that no exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS has been made out. The petition involves disputed questions which are required to be adjudicated upon after evidence, and accordingly the petition deserves to be dismissed. 19. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 20. The principal question which arises for consideration is whether, on the basis of the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC would amount to an abuse of the process of law, warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS. 21. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 08.01.2022 and that immediately thereafter the petitioner lodged Crime No.10/2022 against the deceased alleging that, after he was compelled to apply sudden brakes on account of a cow coming onto the highway, the vehicle driven by the deceased came from behind and dashed against 14 his vehicle. The said FIR was lodged on the very date of the occurrence. The prosecution case, however, subsequently came to be registered on 15.01.2022, after a delay of about eight days, alleging that the petitioner had overtaken the vehicle of the deceased and suddenly applied brakes, resulting in the collision. 22. The delay in lodging the subsequent FIR, by itself, may not be sufficient to discard the prosecution case. However, in the present matter, the significance of such delay has to be examined along with the nature of the material collected during investigation and the earlier version of the occurrence. The complainant, in her initial statement recorded during investigation, did not disclose the registration number of the petitioner's vehicle or the specific manner in which the petitioner allegedly overtook the vehicle and suddenly applied brakes. Her initial version was that she received information about the accident from one Prakash Sahu, who had allegedly answered the mobile phone of the deceased and informed her that her father had met with an accident. 23. Significantly, the prosecution has not placed before this Court any statement of an independent eyewitness who had actually witnessed the occurrence and who could establish that the petitioner overtook the vehicle of the deceased, drove rashly or negligently, and suddenly applied brakes in such a manner as to cause the accident. The statements relied upon by the prosecution, as noticed from the material placed on record, are not of persons who had themselves witnessed the accident. Even the person whose name was disclosed in the initial 15 version of the complainant, namely Prakash Sahu, has not been examined during investigation so as to clarify the source of the information regarding the manner of occurrence. 24. The distinction between a mere accident and criminal negligence is well settled. For attracting Section 279 or Section 304-A of the IPC, the prosecution must be in a position to prima facie demonstrate a rash or negligent act attributable to the petitioner and a causal connection between such act and the resultant death. The mere fact that the vehicle of the petitioner was involved in the accident and that the deceased subsequently died cannot, by itself, constitute the offences alleged. 25. In the present case, the earliest version furnished by the petitioner is that his vehicle had stopped after he was confronted with a cow on the highway and that the vehicle of the deceased thereafter collided with his vehicle from behind. Whether that version is ultimately correct or not is not for this Court to determine. However, the prosecution is required to place at least some reliable material showing the specific rash or negligent act of the petitioner. On the material placed before us, such foundational material is conspicuously absent. 26. The contention of learned counsel for respondent No.4 that the site map shows the petitioner's vehicle in the middle of the highway and thereby establishes negligence, cannot by itself advance the prosecution case. The position of the vehicles after an accident may be a relevant circumstance, but it cannot, without other supporting material, 16 conclusively establish the manner in which the accident occurred or the requisite degree of rashness or negligence contemplated under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC. 27. Equally, the fact that the petitioner lodged the FIR immediately after the accident cannot be treated as conclusive proof of his innocence. Nevertheless, the said circumstance assumes significance when considered cumulatively with the subsequent delayed FIR, the material variation in the version of the complainant and the absence of any direct eyewitness account supporting the allegation that the petitioner overtook the deceased and suddenly applied brakes. 28. We are conscious that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, this Court ordinarily does not undertake appreciation of evidence or conduct a mini-trial. However, the present case does not require such an exercise. The question is whether the allegations and the material collected by the investigating agency, taken at their face value, disclose the basic ingredients of the offences alleged. Where the material itself fails to disclose the foundational act of rashness or negligence attributable to the accused, continuation of the prosecution cannot be justified merely because a charge-sheet has been filed. 29. The argument advanced on behalf of respondent No.4 that the petitioner ought to have taken the deceased to the hospital instead of lodging the FIR also does not assist the prosecution. The circumstances immediately following the accident, including the manner in which the deceased was taken for treatment, cannot substitute the essential 17 requirement of establishing that the petitioner had committed a rash or negligent act which caused the accident. Moreover, such disputed circumstances cannot independently constitute an offence under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC. 30. The award of compensation in favour of respondent No.4 in the motor accident claim proceedings is likewise not determinative of the petitioner's criminal liability. Proceedings for compensation and criminal prosecution operate in different fields. The award of compensation neither establishes guilt nor bars criminal prosecution. At the same time, the existence of the compensation proceedings cannot be used to supply the missing ingredients of a criminal offence where the prosecution material otherwise fails to disclose the same. 31. We also find considerable substance in the submission regarding the prolonged pendency of the criminal case. Cognizance was taken in November 2022 and charges were framed in November 2023. Despite repeated dates thereafter, the prosecution has not been able to examine even a single witness. The petitioner is stated to be about 73 years of age and is required to travel from Bilaspur to Bemetara for attending the proceedings. The right to speedy trial is an important facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. Though delay alone may not ordinarily constitute a ground for quashing a prosecution, in the present case the prolonged and ineffective pendency assumes significance when considered along with the inherent deficiencies in the prosecution material. 18 32. The petitioner had also earlier approached this Court and had withdrawn the earlier petition with liberty to avail an appropriate remedy afresh. The present petition has been filed thereafter in the light of the subsequent developments, including framing of charge and continued failure of the prosecution to commence its evidence. Thus, the present petition cannot be treated as a mere repetition of the earlier proceedings. 33. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the prosecution material does not disclose sufficient foundational material to establish even a prima facie case of rash or negligent driving against the petitioner. The subsequent version of the occurrence is not supported by any direct eyewitness account; the material variation between the initial and subsequent versions remains unexplained at the threshold; and the earlier FIR lodged by the petitioner immediately after the occurrence has not been effectively investigated so as to conclusively establish the manner of the accident. 34. In these circumstances, compelling the petitioner, a senior citizen, to undergo a full-fledged criminal trial for an offence for which the basic ingredients are not prima facie established would amount to permitting the criminal process to operate as an instrument of harassment and would result in abuse of the process of the Court. The case, therefore, falls within the parameters in which exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court is warranted to secure the ends of justice. 35. Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR bearing Crime 19 No.26/2022 registered at Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara, for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC, the consequential final report/charge-sheet, the order taking cognizance dated 23.11.2022 passed in Criminal Case No.2158/2022, and the charge framed against the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC, along with all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan