1 2026:CGHC:15471-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 956 of 2026 Balkaran Verma S/o Prabhuram Verma Aged About 46 Years R/o.- Village Kevtara, Kharora, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through.- Station House Officer, Police Station Tilda Newra, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Jageshwar Verma S/o Chandrika Prasad Verma Aged About 32 Years R/o.- Village Kevtara, Kharora, Police Station Kharora, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06 .04.2026 SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.04.07 10:53:17 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Sunil Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State/ respondent. 2. The present CrMP under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the Charge-sheet/ Challan No. 451/2025 dated 31.12.2025 in FIR No. 357/2025 dated 17.08.2025 of Station House Officer registered at Police Station Tilda Newra, Dist- Raipur (CG) for the offence under Sections 105, 238 (B) and 3 (5) of B.N.S. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of Charge Sheet/Challan No. 451/2025 dated 31.12.2025 arising out of F.I.R. No. 357/2025 dated 17.08.2025 registered at Police Station Tilda Newra, District Raipur for offences under Sections 105, 238(B) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., on the basis of a complaint lodged by Respondent No.2, Jageshwar Verma. Initially, the petitioner had approached this Hon’ble Court by filing Cr.M.P. No. 474/2026 for quashing of the said F.I.R., wherein the Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police to explain the delay in investigation, subsequently, it was informed that the charge-sheet had already been filed and the petitioner had been granted bail by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur on 29.08.2025, and the said petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate recourse against the charge-sheet, leading to the filing of the present petition. 3 4. As per the contents of FIR, a merg inquiry was initiated at Police Station Tilda Newra regarding the death of Omprakash Verma, where during inspection and post-mortem examination it was confirmed that the death occurred due to electrocution. Investigation revealed that unknown persons had illegally installed live electric wires in the field boundary with the intention of killing wild animals. During further inquiry, it was found that the accused persons, namely Chintaram Yadav, Vishram Dheewar, Dharam Singh Yadav, and Balkaran Verma, had conspired and laid naked electric wires connected to a power source from a nearby Radha Krishna temple, spreading current over a distance to trap wild boars. On the date of the incident, while waiting for animals, the victim Omprakash Verma accidentally came into contact with the live wire and died due to electric shock. After learning about the incident, the accused persons removed and concealed the wires in the jungle to destroy evidence. Subsequently, the materials used in the offence, including electric wires and the motorcycle, were recovered and seized, and upon finding sufficient evidence, offences under Sections 105, 238(B), and 3(5) of the BNS were registered, the accused were arrested and sent to judicial remand, and Charge-sheet No. 451/2025 was filed before the competent court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the implication of the petitioner in the present case is solely based on the memorandum statement of co-accused, which is inadmissible 4 in evidence except to the limited extent of recovery, and in the present case, no recovery or discovery has been made from the petitioner, rendering such statement wholly inadmissible under Section 23 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, that the F.I.R. was initially registered against unknown persons and the name of the petitioner does not appear therein, and his subsequent implication without any independent evidence or corroboration is illegal and amounts to abuse of process of law, therefore, continuation of the proceedings including the charge- sheet is unjustified, and in the interest of justice, the same deserves to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the State/respondent would submit that once the FIR has been registered, it has to be investigated and taken to its logical end. After investigation charge-sheet has been filed. 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. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR and document annexed with the petition. 8. 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 5 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 482 of the Cr.P.C. 9. 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./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 528 of 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 F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 10. From perusal of the material annexed with the charge-sheet, there is allegation against the present petitioner that he along with other accused persons spreading electricity current on the barbed wires of the boundary of the field. It is the present petitioner on whose 6 instance, they connected the electric wires with barbed wires in the field by his nephew Om Prakash and he provided liquire to them. Thereafter, the other accused persons laid naked electric wires connected to a power source from a nearby temple and then the incident occurred. There is sufficient material that the present petitioner has actively participated in the alleged act along with the other accused persons. From the statement of the witnesses Sunil, Narayan and Dilip, the involvement of the present petitioner in the offence in question is prima facie appears which is sufficient to proceed against him with the trial. 11. After having gone through the allegations made in the impugned FIR and the charge-sheet, in our opinion 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. 12. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika