CGHC010312032026 2026:CGHC:35875-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 463 of 2026 Ajay Yadav S/o Ramphal Yadav Aged About 49 Years Presently Confined Jail Through His Wife, Smt Savita Yadav W/o Ajay Yadav Aged About 34 Years R/o Junior M I G - 92, Housing Board Colony, Near Water Tank Mahasamund District Mahasamund C. G. ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Singhoda, District Mahasamund C.G. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri PN Bharat, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri Ashish Shukla, Addl AG --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per R amesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13.08.2026 Heard Shri PN Bharat, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Ashish Shukla, Addl AG, appearing for the State. 1. Present Writ petition is filed for the following reliefs: “10.1. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing FIR No.42/2026 dated 29.04.2026 registered at Police Station Wpcr 463 of 2026 2 Singhoda, District Mahasamund, the Final Report/Charge-sheet No.55/2026 dated 28.07.2026 filed under Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saraipali, consequential Mahasamund, and all District criminal proceedings arising therefrom, insofar as they relate to accused Ajay Yadav, for offences punishable under Sections 61, 238, 249, 316(3), 316(5), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 10.2. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 29.07.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saraipali, District-Mahasamund in Criminal Case No.1577/2026, whereby cognizance has been taken against accused Ajay Yadav on the basis of Final Report/Charge-sheet No.55/2026 arising out of FIR No.42/2026, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, insofar as they relate to Ajay Yadav. 10.3. Pending final disposal of the present writ petition, stay Criminal in proceedings further the Case No. 1577/2026 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate Saraipali, Class, First District Mahasamund, insofar as they relate to Ajay Yadav. 10.4. Grant any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of FIR No.42/2026 registered at Police Wpcr 463 of 2026 3 Station Singhoda, District Mahasamund, for the offences punishable under Sections 61, 238, 249, 316(3), 316(5), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as also the Final Report/Charge-sheet No.55/2026 dated 28.07.2026 and the order dated 29.07.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saraipali in Criminal Case No.1577/2026, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner. 3. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that Crime No.96/2025 was registered at Police Station Singhoda on the basis of a complaint alleging illegal extraction of LPG gas from capsule trucks and refilling of the same into smaller cylinders. During investigation, six LPG capsule trucks, LPG cylinders, refilling pipes, weighing equipment and other articles were seized. Since the seized capsule trucks contained highly inflammable LPG, arrangements were thereafter, made for their safe custody. Pursuant to the proceedings undertaken by the competent authorities, certain capsule trucks were handed over on supurdnama to one Santosh Singh Thakur, proprietor of Thakur Petro Chemicals, whereas other seized articles were entrusted to another person/agency. Subsequently, on a complaint alleging shortage of LPG from the seized capsule trucks, FIR No.42/2026 dated 29.04.2026 came to be registered. During investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 08.05.2026 and, after completion of investigation, Final Report/Charge-sheet No.55/2026 was submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saraipali against ten accused persons, including the present petitioner. The learned Magistrate thereafter, vide order dated 29.07.2026, took cognizance of the offences. Wpcr 463 of 2026 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and that he was never entrusted with the custody or possession of the seized LPG capsule trucks. It is also contended that the vehicles were admittedly handed over on supurdnama to Santosh Singh Thakur and, therefore, any alleged shortage of LPG could not be attributed to the petitioner. It is further submitted that, before handing over the vehicles, no scientific weighment, dip reading, calibration or other measurement was undertaken by the Investigating Officer or the Food Department and, consequently, there was no baseline quantity against which any alleged shortage could subsequently be determined. Learned counsel has also relied upon the subsequent weighment allegedly undertaken on 06.04.2026 and 08.04.2026 to contend that the weight of the vehicles was found to be correct. It is argued that none of the employees of Thakur Petro Chemicals has attributed any overt act to the petitioner and that his implication is substantially based upon the memorandum statement of co-accused Pankaj Chandrakar. It is further submitted that the said co-accused had previous animosity against the petitioner on account of complaints allegedly made by the petitioner against Gaurav Gas Agency, pursuant to which penalty was imposed by the competent authority. According to learned counsel, there is no recovery of LPG from the petitioner, no incriminating document or financial trail has been found and the CDRs, by themselves, do not establish commission of any offence. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the alleged shortage of LPG is itself doubtful for want of initial quantification and that the entire prosecution is founded upon an alleged breach of the terms of the supurdnama. It is contended that Section 6-E of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 bars the jurisdiction of any other Court or authority in relation to Wpcr 463 of 2026 5 possession, delivery, release or disposal of the seized essential commodity and that the matter ought to have been dealt with under the statutory mechanism relating to custody and confiscation. It is also argued that the provisions relating to bonds and their forfeiture under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ought to have been invoked instead of initiating a criminal prosecution. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and submits that the present case falls within the categories warranting exercise of the extraordinary/inherent jurisdiction of this Court to prevent abuse of the process of law. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the petition proceeds substantially on disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the investigation has already been completed and a charge-sheet has been filed containing material collected by the investigating agency against the petitioner. At this stage, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence or to undertake a mini-trial for determining whether the prosecution would ultimately succeed. 7. Learned State counsel further submits that the contention that the petitioner was not the formal supurdar of the seized vehicles does not, by itself, exonerate him from the offences alleged. The prosecution case is required to be considered on the basis of the entire material collected during investigation, including the statements of witnesses, the statement of the co-accused, call detail records, alleged recovery of cash and other circumstances relied upon Wpcr 463 of 2026 6 by the investigating agency. The evidentiary value and inter se reliability of such material are matters for the trial Court. The petitioner cannot seek an adjudication of these disputed questions at the threshold merely by placing reliance upon selected portions of the charge-sheet. 8. Learned State counsel also submits that the alleged weighment conducted after the vehicles were handed over on supurdnama does not conclusively establish that no LPG was subsequently removed or misappropriated. The effect and evidentiary value of the weighment documents, the circumstances in which the weighment was undertaken, the actual quantity of LPG contained in the capsule trucks and the alleged shortage are all matters which require evidence. Similarly, the allegation of previous hostility between the petitioner and co-accused Pankaj Chandrakar is a matter of defence and cannot be conclusively accepted by this Court at the stage of quashing. 9. It is further submitted that Section 6-E of the Essential Commodities Act operates in the field specifically contemplated therein and does not create a general bar against investigation or prosecution of cognizable criminal offences arising out of the alleged misappropriation, removal or manipulation of seized essential commodities. Likewise, the provisions relating to forfeiture of bonds do not confer immunity from prosecution for an independent substantive criminal offence. It is, therefore, submitted that the petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. Wpcr 463 of 2026 7 11. The principal question which arises for consideration is as to whether, on the basis of the material collected during investigation and forming part of the charge-sheet, this Court should exercise its extraordinary/inherent jurisdiction to terminate the criminal proceedings against the petitioner at the threshold. 12. It is by now well settled that the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings is extraordinary in nature and has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great circumspection. The power is not intended to enable the High Court to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence collected by the investigating agency or to determine the probable defence of the accused. 13. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court illustrated the categories of cases in which the extraordinary power of quashing may appropriately be exercised, while cautioning that such power has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and that the categories indicated therein are illustrative and not exhaustive. The aforesaid principles have subsequently been reiterated in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that, at the stage of quashing, the High Court should ordinarily refrain from examining the reliability or genuineness of the allegations or conducting a meticulous appreciation of the material and should interfere only where the case falls within the limited parameters warranting exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction. 14. The principal contention of the petitioner is that he was not the person in whose favour the seized vehicles were handed over on supurdnama. However, Wpcr 463 of 2026 8 the fact that another person was formally entrusted with the physical custody of the vehicles cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the petitioner had no connection whatsoever with the alleged offence. The prosecution is relying upon the entire material collected during investigation to attribute a role to the petitioner. Whether such material is sufficient to establish his participation in the alleged offence is a matter which must be determined by the trial Court after appreciation of evidence. However, the effect of the said document cannot be conclusively determined merely by looking at the document in isolation. The prosecution would be entitled to explain the circumstances in which the weighment was conducted, the nature of the measurement, the quantity of LPG allegedly entrusted, the manner in which the alleged shortage was subsequently detected and the relevance of the weighment to the allegations contained in the FIR and charge-sheet. These are essentially matters of evidence. 15. Likewise, the contention that there was no initial scientific measurement of LPG at the time of handing over the vehicles may be a circumstance which the petitioner can effectively urge before the trial Court. However, such alleged deficiency in investigation does not, by itself, justify quashing of the entire criminal prosecution, where the charge-sheet contains other material which the prosecution proposes to rely upon. 16. The petitioner has also sought to discredit the statement of co-accused Pankaj Chandrakar by alleging previous hostility between them. It is undoubtedly well settled that a confession of a co-accused does not, by itself, constitute substantive evidence against another accused in the manner in which direct substantive evidence does. However, at the present stage, this Wpcr 463 of 2026 9 Court is not called upon to determine the ultimate evidentiary value of the said statement. The prosecution case is required to be considered as a whole, including the other material collected during investigation. 17. The submission based upon the alleged previous hostility between the petitioner and co-accused Pankaj Chandrakar also cannot be accepted at this stage. Whether the said circumstance renders the statement of the co-accused false or motivated is a question of fact requiring appreciation of evidence. A defence based upon mala fides cannot ordinarily be accepted merely on the basis of assertions contained in the petition when the investigating agency has completed investigation and has placed material before the competent criminal Court. 18. The submission founded upon Section 6-E of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 also does not persuade us to exercise jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. The said provision deals with the jurisdiction concerning possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution of the essential commodity, vehicle or other conveyance seized pending confiscation. It cannot be construed as conferring a general immunity from criminal prosecution for substantive offences allegedly committed in relation to the seized property. 19. In the present case, the allegation is not confined merely to a dispute regarding release or custody of the vehicles. The prosecution alleges removal/misappropriation of LPG and commission of various substantive offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Essential Commodities Act. Whether those offences are ultimately established is a matter for trial. The mere fact that the property had earlier been seized and Wpcr 463 of 2026 10 thereafter released on supurdnama does not, at this stage, render the subsequent criminal prosecution without jurisdiction. 20. The reliance placed upon Sections 485, 486 and 491 of the BNSS also does not advance the petitioner's case. These provisions operate in the field of bonds furnished by an accused and sureties and the consequences of forfeiture thereof. They do not create any bar against prosecution for an independent substantive offence arising from the alleged removal, misappropriation or manipulation of the seized property. 21. It is also significant that the investigation has already culminated in filing of the charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. At this stage, this Court is not sitting in appeal over the opinion formed by the investigating agency. The question is not whether the prosecution evidence is ultimately sufficient to secure conviction, but whether the material collected during investigation discloses a case requiring consideration by the criminal Court. 22. In the present case, we find that the petitioner seeks an adjudication of several disputed questions, including: (i) the actual quantity of LPG contained in the capsule trucks; (ii) the effect of the alleged weighment conducted after the supurdnama; (iii) the manner and basis of computation of the alleged shortage; (iv) the role allegedly played by the petitioner; (v) the evidentiary value of the statement of co-accused Pankaj Chandrakar; (vi) the significance of the CDRs; (vii) the relevance of the alleged recovery of cash; and (viii) the allegation of previous hostility between the petitioner and the co-accused. All these questions necessarily require appreciation of evidence. They cannot Wpcr 463 of 2026 11 appropriately be decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If this Court were to determine these questions on the basis of the documents relied upon by the petitioner, it would necessarily amount to conducting a mini-trial, which is impermissible at this stage. 23. It is equally well settled that a defect or omission in investigation, even assuming the same to exist, does not automatically result in quashing of the prosecution if the material otherwise discloses a prima facie case. The accused would be entitled to raise all such objections before the trial Court and, if necessary, seek appropriate relief in accordance with law. 24. In Neeharika Infrastructure (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that the High Court must exercise the power of quashing sparingly and with circumspection and that the criminal process should ordinarily be allowed to proceed where the allegations and material disclose a prima facie case. 25. In the facts of the present case, we are unable to hold that the allegations are so absurd, inherently improbable or devoid of any material that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Nor can it be said, at this stage, that the material collected by the investigating agency, taken at its face value, completely excludes the possibility of the petitioner's involvement. 26. The reliance placed by the petitioner upon Bhajan Lal (supra) does not advance his case. The categories enumerated therein are illustrative and are intended to prevent abuse of the process of the Court; they do not confer a right upon an accused to have the evidence weighed or disputed questions of Wpcr 463 of 2026 12 fact adjudicated in proceedings for quashing. The present case, in our considered opinion, does not fall within any of the exceptional categories warranting such interference. 27. We therefore find no ground to interfere with FIR No.42/2026, Final Report/Charge-sheet No.55/2026 dated 28.07.2026, or the order dated 29.07.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saraipali in Criminal Case No.1577/2026. 28. Needless to say that, the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not prejudice the petitioner before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court shall consider the evidence independently and in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made in this order. 29. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. 30. As a sequel, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.08.19 17:43:28 +0530