1 2026:CGHC:15469-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 942 of 2026 Basanti Devi W/o Late Ramratan Das, Aged About 62 Years R/o Village - Bhuwneshwarpur, Koirapara, Police Station Ramanujnagar, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Ramanujnagar, (Shrinagar), District- Surajpur (C.G.) 2. Balkrishna Rajwade S/o Late Ramdayal Rajwade, Aged About 43 Years Caste Rajwar, R/o Ramanujnagar, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.04.06 17:53:00 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “I. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition under Section 528 of BNSS filed by the petitioner. II. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR dated 04.02.2024 bearing Crime No. 35 of 2024 registered at Police Station, Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence under Section 304, 34 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. III. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Final Report No. 56 of 2024 dated 28.04.2024 filed by Police Station, Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur before the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Surajpur, District Surajpur (Annexure P/1) against the petitioner. IV. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order of charge dated 17.09.2025 (Annexure P/2) whereby the learned Special Judge (Electricity Act), Surajpur has framed charges under Section 304 of IPC and Section 135(1)(A) of Electricity Act, 2003 against the petitioner. V. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceedings pending in Special Criminal Case No. 02 of 202 before the learned Special Judge (Electricity Act), Surajpur against the petitioner. VI. Grant any other relief, which may be deemed fit in given facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the prosecution case, respondent No. 2 lodged an intimation before Police Station Ramanujnagar stating that his nephew, namely Girish Kumar 3 Rajwade, along with Dilbhajan Rajwade and Omprakash Rajwade, was proceeding towards Uchdih Railway Station in a Skoda car bearing registration No. CG-29AF-1556, which was being driven by Girish Kumar Rajwade. It is alleged that near Village Narayanpur Amapara, the vehicle dashed against a mango tree lying on the roadside. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said incident was informed by Dilbhajan Rajwade to the complainant, whereafter the complainant along with others reached the spot and found that Dilbhajan Rajwade had sustained injuries and Girish Kumar Rajwade was in an unconscious condition. He was thereafter taken to CHC, Ramanujnagar, where he was declared dead. Thereafter, on the basis of the said information, initially a merg was registered under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C., and after completion of merg inquiry, FIR was registered on 04.02.2024 for the offence under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. Upon completion of investigation, charge- sheet was filed before the competent Court, and the matter was committed to the learned Special Judge, who, vide order dated 17.09.2025, has framed charges under Section 304 of the IPC and Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the petitioner. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the entire case of the prosecution is accepted at its face value, no offence is made out against the present petitioner. It is contended that the prosecution is founded on conjectures and surmises 4 and there is no legally admissible material connecting the petitioner with the alleged incident. He further submits that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself, who dashed the vehicle against a tree lying on the roadside in broad daylight. It is submitted that there is no material to suggest that the petitioner had any role whatsoever either in cutting the said tree or in placing/causing it to remain on the road. It is further submitted that the petitioner, being an elderly lady aged about 62 years, is physically incapable of committing the alleged act, and no incriminating article has been recovered from her possession. It is also submitted that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out against the petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the charges have already been framed after due consideration of the material collected during investigation, and the learned trial Court has found sufficient prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner. It is submitted that the scope of interference at this stage is extremely limited. 7. Learned State counsel further submits that the trial has already commenced and two prosecution witnesses have been examined before the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that the matter is now fixed for recording of further evidence on 20.04.2026. In such circumstances, it is contended that the prosecution has progressed substantially and the proceedings ought not to be interdicted at this stage. 5 8. It is further contended by the learned State counsel that the issues raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, including the nature of the incident and the role attributed to the petitioner, which can only be adjudicated upon appreciation of evidence during trial. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked to conduct a mini- trial or to assess the sufficiency of evidence at this stage. He would submit that the contentions regarding absence of recovery, alleged incapacity of the petitioner, and false implication are matters of defence, which are required to be tested during the course of trial. Premature interference at this stage would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 10. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge or when the trial has already commenced, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of evidence or adjudicate upon its sufficiency. If the material on record discloses a prima facie case, the proceedings ought not to be interdicted. 11. In the present case, it is not in dispute that charges have already been framed by the competent Court and the trial is in progress. It is also evident that two prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the matter is fixed for further evidence on 20.04.2026. 12. The contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner 6 pertain essentially to disputed questions of fact, including the alleged role of the petitioner, absence of recovery, and the cause of the incident, all of which require appreciation of evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in the present proceedings. 13. This Court is of the considered view that at this stage, when the trial has already commenced and is progressing, no case is made out for exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceedings, as such interference would amount to pre-empting the trial and encroaching upon the domain of the trial Court. 14. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. However, considering that the trial is already underway, the learned trial Court is directed to make an earnest endeavour to conclude the same expeditiously, in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan