1 2026:CGHC:7952-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 471 of 2026 1. Upendar Korwa S/o Krishna Korwa Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Karwa Pahad, P.S. Dhurki, District- Gadhwa, Jharkhand (In-Jail) 2. Jamil Ansari S/o Nasimul Haq Aged About 41 Years R/o Village- Khalatola Saroj Nagar, P.S.- Dhurki, District- Gadhwa, Jharkhand (In-Jail) 3. Ariful Haq S/o Nasimul Haq Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Khalatola Saroj Nagar, P.S. Dhurki, District- Gadhwa, Jharkhand (In-Jail) 4. Shakil Ansari S/o Israr Ansari Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Khalatola Saroj Nagar, P.S.- Dhurki, District- Gadhwa, Jharkhand (On-Bail) 5. Hamidul Haq S/o Nasimul Haq Aged About 20 Years R/o Village- Khalatola Saroj Nagar, P.S. Dhurki, District- Gadhwa, Jharkhand (In-Jail) 6. Nasimul Haq @ Naseem S/o Kudrat Ali Aged About 65 Years R/o Village- Khalatola Saroj Nagar, P.S. Dhurki, District- Gadhwa, Jharkhand (On-Bail) 7. Najamul Haq @ Nejam S/o Nasimul Haq Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Khalatola Saroj Nagar, P.S. Dhurki, District- Gadhwa, Jharkhand (On-Bail) 8. Sadamul Haq @ Sadam S/o Nasimul Haq Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Khalatola Saroj Nagar, P.S. Dhurki, District- Gadhwa, Jharkhand (On-Bail) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.02.13 19:34:29 +0530 2 9. Rajibul Haq S/o Nasimul Haq Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Khalatola Saroj Nagar, P.S. Dhurki, District- Gadhwa, Jharkhand (On-Bail) 10. Akbar Ansari S/o Late Najim Miya Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Khalatola Saroj Nagar, P.S. Dhurki, District- Gadhwa, Jharkhand (On-Bail) 11. Ainul Haq S/o Nasimul Haq Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Khalatola Saroj Nagar, P.S. Dhurki, District- Gadhwa, Jharkhand (Absconding) ... Petitioner(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Sanawal, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. S.C. Verma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Katyayani Vishnupriya, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 13.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. S.C. Verma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Katyayani Vishnupriya, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: 3 “1. Quash/set aside the “Final Report / charge-sheet / challan bearing No. 34/2025, dated 06.08.2025 filed/registered by the Respondent / Police Station Sanawal, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) U/S. 193 of BNSS, in connection with the crime registered U/Ss. 103(1), 109, 121(1), 132, 221, 61(2), 3(5), 303(2), 238, 249 of the BNS r/w Ss. 33(1)(b), 52 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Ss. 04/21 of Mines and Minerals Act, and Order of the Ld. Sessions Court taking of the cognizance of offence on 02.09.2025 and made charges on 07.11.2025 (Annexure P/1 Colly) and all consequential proceedings thereto, insofar as they relate to the present case of the petitioners, in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience and to prevent abuse of the process of law 2. That, any other relief(s) which the Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper may kindly be pleased to granted in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, being citizens of India, are entitled to the protection of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India, including the right to equality under Article 14, the right to freedom under Article 19, and the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. It is contended that the petitioners have been subjected to arbitrary, unlawful, and vindictive action by the authorities, resulting in a gross violation of their constitutional rights, thereby necessitating intervention by this Hon’ble Court. 4. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that as per the 4 prosecution case reflected in the FIR, on 11.05.2025, during a raid operation based on a complaint regarding illegal road construction using a JCB inside the forest at compartment number P-896 Jhara, information was received through an informant alleging that illegal smugglers from Jharkhand were excavating sand from the Libra Kanhar River bank situated at the border of Chhattisgarh and transporting it through tractors. It is alleged that police reached the spot at approximately 01:30 a.m. on 12.05.2025 and noticed 3-4 tractors being loaded with sand. Upon seeing the police, certain persons allegedly shouted names including Ariful Haq, Jamil Ansari, and others and attempted to flee from the spot. It is further alleged that during the attempt to escape, the smugglers obstructed police personnel and drove a tractor over Constable No. 809 Shivbachan Singh, who later succumbed to injuries after being declared brought dead at Government Hospital, Ramanujganj. On the basis of these allegations, FIR No. 27/2025 dated 12.05.2025 was registered under relevant provisions of the BNS and a charge-sheet bearing No. 34/2025 was subsequently filed before the competent Court on 06.08.2025, cognizance being taken on 02.09.2025. 5. Learned Senior Advocate contends that the respondent authorities committed fraud by suppressing material evidence demonstrating that the alleged place of occurrence falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Jharkhand and, therefore, the respondent police lacked jurisdiction to register the FIR or conduct investigation. It is submitted that the spot map prepared by the Patwari dated 05.08.2025 forms part of the case 5 diary but was deliberately suppressed while filing the final report. According to the petitioners, the said document was obtained under the Right to Information Act, revealing deliberate concealment of material evidence and abuse of the process of law. It is further argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated based on hearsay allegations and doubtful identification allegedly made during darkness at 01:30 a.m. The charge-sheet, according to the petitioners, does not attribute any specific overt act to them and mere presence at the site cannot constitute common intention for commission of murder under Section 303(2) of the BNS. It is also contended that the arrest and seizure allegedly occurred within Jharkhand without compliance with mandatory transit remand procedures. 6. Learned Senior Advocate submits that the prosecution case is largely based on memorandum and confessional statements allegedly made before police authorities, which are inadmissible in evidence. It is further submitted that, at best, the alleged act may constitute culpable homicide or negligence and not murder. The alleged act of striking the deceased is attributed only to the driver of the tractor and no specific role has been assigned to the present petitioners. 7. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the suppression of the Patwari map constitutes tampering with the investigation and abuse of process of law. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in K.D. Sharma vs. SAIL, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481, and Kusha Duruka vs. State of Odisha, reported 6 in 2024 INSC 46, to contend that suppression of material facts renders proceedings void ab initio. It is further contended that the investigation conducted without territorial jurisdiction is coram non judice and void. It is also argued that mobile location data of the petitioners was not collected and that the owner of the vehicle allegedly used in the offence was not made an accused, demonstrating mala fide action. 8. Learned Senior Advocate submits that such arbitrary action violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India and that the petitioners have no efficacious alternative remedy. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel strongly opposes the petition and submits that the FIR discloses commission of cognizable and serious offences involving the death of a police constable while performing official duties. It is contended that the investigation was conducted strictly in accordance with law and after collecting substantial material evidence including witness statements, seizure of tractors used in the offence, memorandum statements of accused persons, and identification proceedings. He further submits that the issue relating to territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of fact and law, which can only be determined during trial after appreciation of evidence. It is further submitted that at the stage of quashing, the Court is required to examine whether the allegations prima facie disclose commission of an offence and not to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence. 10. It is further contended by the learned State counsel that the Patwari report relied upon by the petitioners is part of the case diary and 7 its evidentiary value can only be examined during trial. Mere allegation of suppression does not vitiate the investigation at the threshold stage. It is contended that sufficient prima facie material exists showing involvement of the petitioners as part of an unlawful assembly engaged in illegal mining and fleeing from police, resulting in the death of a public servant. He would submit that the contention regarding inadmissibility of confessional statements and absence of overt act are matters of defence which can be adjudicated during trial and cannot be grounds for quashing proceedings at this stage. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. The scope of interference by the High Court while exercising jurisdiction to quash an FIR or criminal proceedings is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It has consistently been held that such power must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in rarest of rare cases where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose commission of any offence. 13. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court exhaustively laid down illustrative categories where criminal proceedings may be quashed. It was held that quashing is justified only when the allegations in the FIR do not disclose any cognizable offence, where allegations are absurd or inherently improbable, or where the proceedings are manifestly 8 attended with mala fide intent. However, the Court cautioned that these categories are illustrative and that Courts must refrain from embarking upon appreciation of evidence or adjudicating disputed facts while exercising inherent jurisdiction. 14. Similarly, in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reaffirmed that investigation is the statutory right of the police and Courts should ordinarily not interfere with investigation or criminal proceedings unless the case falls within exceptional parameters laid down in earlier precedents. The Court specifically cautioned that quashing at the initial stage should be an exception rather than the rule. 15. Applying the above settled legal principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the FIR and charge-sheet disclose specific allegations that the accused persons were engaged in illegal sand excavation and, while attempting to flee from the police authorities, one of the tractors struck and killed a police constable who was performing official duty. The investigation has resulted in seizure of vehicles allegedly used in the offence, recording of witness statements, identification proceedings, and memorandum statements of the accused persons. These materials, taken at their face value, clearly disclose prima facie commission of cognizable offences. 16. The contention of the petitioners regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction is essentially based on reliance upon a Patwari map and related documents. However, determination of the exact place of 9 occurrence and territorial jurisdiction involves disputed factual issues requiring evidence, including survey and demarcation of State boundaries. As held in Bhajan Lal (supra) and Neeharika Infrastructure (supra), such disputed factual questions cannot be adjudicated in proceedings seeking quashing of criminal prosecution and must be decided during trial. 17. The allegation that the Patwari map was suppressed and that the investigation was conducted mala fide also cannot be accepted at this stage. The said document forms part of evidentiary material whose relevance, authenticity, and probative value can be tested only during trial. Mere allegation of suppression of a particular document does not render the entire investigation void or illegal at the threshold stage, particularly when other material evidence exists supporting the prosecution case. 18. The submission that no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioners is also untenable at this stage. The material collected during investigation prima facie indicates that the accused persons were acting in concert while committing illegal mining activities and fleeing from law enforcement authorities. Whether such conduct constitutes common intention or common object is a matter that must be determined after appreciation of evidence during trial. 19. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on K.D. Sharma (supra), and Kusha Duruka (supra) is misplaced. Those decisions relate to cases where suppression of material facts directly 10 affected judicial proceedings or resulted in orders being obtained by fraud upon the Court. In the present case, the alleged suppression relates to investigative material, whose evidentiary significance is yet to be tested. Therefore, those precedents are distinguishable and do not justify quashing of criminal proceedings at this stage. 20. It is a settled proposition of criminal jurisprudence that the High Court, while exercising inherent or writ jurisdiction, cannot conduct a mini trial or examine the sufficiency and reliability of evidence. So long as the prosecution case discloses prima facie material supporting the allegations, continuation of criminal proceedings cannot be treated as abuse of process of law. 21. Considering the gravity of allegations involving death of a police constable during discharge of official duty, availability of prima facie material collected during investigation, and the existence of disputed factual issues requiring adjudication during trial, this Court is of the considered view that the present case does not fall within the parameters laid down for quashing criminal proceedings. 22. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that observations made herein are confined to adjudication of the present petition and shall not influence the trial Court while deciding the case on merits in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan