1 2026:CGHC:16104-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 954 of 2026 1 - Manoj Kumar Singh S/o Kailash Singh, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Shishubagan, Raniganj, District- Burdwan, West Bengal. 2 - Jaisram Chaudhary S/o Ramkaran Chaudhary, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Baranda, Post Bankati, Police Station- Lalganj, District- Basti (U.P.) 3 - Aslam @ Abdul Salam S/o Abu Harera, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Jamdashahi, Police Station- Walterganj, District- Basti (U.P.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Baradwar, District - Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Niraj Baghel, Advocate. For State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. 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. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the following Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.04.09 12:08:53 +0530 2 prayer(s):- “(i) Quash Charge Sheet No. 26 of 2023 filed against the petitioners for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 407, 408, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, arising out of FIR No. 10 of 2023 registered at Police Station Baradwar, District Sakti (C.G.). (ii) Quash and set aside the order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti in Criminal Case No. 222 of 2023, whereby cognizance has been taken for the offences under Sections 420, 407, 408, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) quash and set aside the order dated 11.12.2024 whereby the learned trial Court framed charges against Manoj Kumar and Prakash Chaudhary under Sections 420/34, 407/34 and 120-B/34 and against Aslam @ Abbas Salam under Sections 420/34, 408/34 and 120-B/34 IPC. (iv) Quash and set aside the order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti in Criminal Revision No. 01 of 2025, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners against the order framing of charge has been dismissed. (v) Consequently, quash the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 222 of 2023, arising out of Charge Sheet No. 26 of 2023 (filed pursuant to FIR No. 10 of 2023 registered at Police Station Baradwar, District Sakti) pending before the Court of chief Judicial Magistrate Sakti, as against the present petitioners. (vi) Pass any other 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. The petitioners are accused persons in Crime No.10/2023, registered at Police Station Baradwar, District Sakti (C.G.) for the 3 offences under Sections 420, 407, 408, 120-B and 34 of the IPC. The brief facts of the case is that, police of Police Station Baradwar received a secret information that the tankers No.CG 04 NJ 8382 and CG 04 NJ 8385 proceeding towards Raigarh loaded with adulterated furnace oil. The police along with the search party proceeded towards the informed place and intercepted the said two tankers near Gupta Dhaba, NH No.49, Baradwar. On being interrogation they disclosed their names and informed that they proceeded from Lakholi Depot Raipur and going JSPL Ispat Nahar Pali, Raigarh to unload the furnace oil. They also disclosed that with the connivance of the co-accused Aslam @ Abdul Salam had prepared a plan and in furtherance thereof they extracted about 7000 liter furnace oil from the aforesaid two tanker and thereafter mixed the sulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide in the water and filled it in the said tankers equal amounting to 7000 liter. All the activities have been carried out near river at Sheorinarayan. The extracted furnace oil were kept in plastic tank concealed at the spot and adulterated furnace oil was filled up in the tankers. Based on their memorandum statement the tankers, loaded adulterated furnace oil, builty challan and furnace oil extracted from the tankers have been seized along with other allied equipments. The offence has been registered and after investigation charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners who were arrested and other accused persons showing them absconding. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the very foundation of the prosecution case by alleging that the furnace oil transported in the tankers was adulterated with chemicals for the 4 purposes of wrongful gain, in view of the scientific examination report conducted by the Laboratory of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. completely demolishes the prosecution case. The said test report conducted by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Korba categorically clarifies that the furnace oil samples meets the prescribed BIS standards. The said report was produced by the prosecution before the learned trial Court under the direction issued by them which clearly establishes that the furnace oil seized from the tankers was in its correct density. It is further submitted that once the scientific test report negates the allegation of adulteration the continuation of the prosecution on assumption becomes legally unsustainable. It is also submitted that the prosecution has failed to adduce any independent expert evidence or technical material to substantiate the allegation of adulteration and the case is primarily founded upon alleged memorandum statement recorded by police. The memorandum statement without there being any corroboration or discovery of incriminating fact do not constitute substantive evidence in law. There is no complaint lodged by the consignee, transporter or owner of the furnace oil alleging any loss, cheating or breach of trust and thus, the allegation for the offence under Sections 420, 407 and 408 of the IPC wholly speculative and devoid of essential ingredients. There is no material to establish dishonestly misappropriation of the entrusted property nor any evidence of employer employee relationship so as to attract the offence under Section 408 of the IPC. Even if the entire prosecution case is accepted as its face value, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are missing and therefore, 5 continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of process of law. He would further submit that the existence of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction is sine qua non for the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC, mere allegation without any sufficient supporting material would not constitute the offence of cheating. In the present case, there is lack of any proved adulteration or wrongful gain. Therefore, the impugned FIR as well as the charge sheet and criminal proceeding against the petitioners may be quashed. In support of his submission he would rely upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and Another, (2019) 11 SCC 706. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and has submitted that the petitioners have taken out the original furnace oil loaded from the company and by preparing adulterated furnace oil filled it in the tankers which ultimately found to be substandard, which clearly shows the intentions of the petitioners to cheat the consignee. There is sufficient material on the record that the petitioners have committed the offence with the collusion of other accused persons who are still absconding. He would further submit that the Court is not required to meticulously examine the evidence available in the petition for quashing of the charge sheet and only prima facie allegations are to be seen irrespective of ultimate possibility of acquittal or conviction. In the 6 present case there are sufficient evidence available to proceed with the trial of the case and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. This Court has given its anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties and examined the material available on record. The entire prosecution case is founded upon the allegation that the petitioners in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy had adulterated the furnace oil by mixing water and hazardous chemicals such as sulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide with a view to derive wrongful gain, thus the allegation of adulteration constitutes the very spectrum and foundational basis upon which the prosecution seeks to build its case against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws attention of this Court towards the test report submitted by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Korba Terminal Lab Gopalpur, Post Office Jamnipali, District Korba, which has been annexed at page No.106 of the petition and according to the said report the sent oil confirms its BIS standards, the relevant part of this report is necessary to be reproduce here:- “iqfyl v/kh{kd] dk;kZy; iqfyl v/kh{kd] ftyk&läh ¼N-x-½ egksn;] fo"k; % ,Q+vks fjtYV~l mijksä fo"k;kUrxZr vkids i=kad iqv-@läh@jhMj&1@33&ch@2023 fnukad 02-08-2024 dk lanHkZ xzg.k djsaA d`i;k voxr gksa fd bl dk;kZy; }kjk iwoZ esa gh ¼fnukad 06-03-2023½ izLrqr mRikn gsrq ijh{k.k fjiksVZ tkjh dh tk pqdh gSA vkids vkxzg ij ;gkWa ;g mYys[k gS fd izLrqr mRikn chvkbZ,l r; ekudksa dk izkIr dj jgk gS tks fd ijh{k.k fjiksVZ esa nf’kZr gSA vr% vkidh vksj lwpukFkZ izsf"kr gSA” 7 7. Further, the test report which has been annexed at page No.96 of the petition shows that the sample of furnace oil having its ‘Density at 15o C under Test Method P 16 confirms 947.1 kg/m3 specification and Water Content under Test Method of P 40 is 0.10 under the specification of Max. 1.00 vol% for vehicle CG 04 NJ 8382 and at page No.98 which is test report for vehicle CG 04 NJ 8385 shows that the furnace oil in that sample is having Density at 15o C under Test Method P 16 confirms 950.7 kg/m3 specification and Water Content under Test Method of P 40 is 0.10 under the specification of Max. 1.00 vol%. The competent laboratory of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Korba Terminal Laboratory Gopalpur submitted its report wherein it has been opined that the furnace oil samples confirms prescribed BIS standards. The report further indicates that the density and other requisite parameters of the furnace oil were found to be within permissible limit, thereby effectively ruling out any possibility of adulteration. Such report, being an expert opinion rendered by specialized and authorized laboratory upon scientific analysis carries considerable evidentiary weight and significance in determining the veracity of the prosecution’s allegation of adulteration being the core ingredient and its absence renders the remaining allegations devoid of substance. 8. This Court also finds considerable merits in the submission advanced by the petitioners that no complaint has been lodged by the consignee company, transporter or owner of the furnace oil alleging any loss, deception or breach of trust. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the petitioners had disconsolately misappropriated or 8 converted any entrusted property for their own use, which is sine qua non for constituting the offence under Section 407 and 408 of the IPC. 9. At this juncture it would be apposite to refer the settled legal principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down the categories of cases where criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed including the cases where allegations do not prima facie constitute any offence or inherently improbable and it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 102 and 103 that - "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are 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. 9 (2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which criminal proceeding is a instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 10 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." 10. In the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and Another, (2019) 11 SCC 706 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 14 and 16 of its judgment that:- “14. First, we would like to deal with the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 2 that once the charge-sheet is filed, petition for quashing of FIR is untenable. We do not see any merit in this submission, keeping in mind the position of this Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat [(2011) 7 SCC 59 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23]. In Joseph Salvaraj A. [(2011) 7 SCC 59 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23], this Court while deciding the question whether the High Court could entertain the Section 482 petition for quashing of FIR, when the charge-sheet was filed by the police during the pendency of the Section 482 petition, observed : (SCC p. 63, para 16) "16. Thus, from the general conspectus of the various sections under which the appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even prima facie from the complainant's FIR. Even if the charge-sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge [Joesph Saivaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, 2007 SCC OnLine Guj 365] could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant's FIR, charge- sheet, documents, etc. or not." 11 15. Even otherwise it must be remembered that the provision invoked by the accused before the High Court is Section 482 CrPC and that this Court is hearing an appeal from an order under Section 482 CrPC. Section 482 CrPC reads as follows:- “482. Saving of inherent powers of the High Court.—Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 16. There is nothing in the words of this section which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court [G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636, para 7 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513. Umesh Kumar v. State of A.P., (2013) 10 SCC 591, para 20 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 338 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 237] . Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced and the allegations have materialised into a charge-sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge-sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court.” 11. Applying the aforesaid principles of law to the facts of the present case and having gone through the entire material produced by the petitioners, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution, in the face of clear and exculpatory scientific evidence, is wholly unsustainable and its continuation would result in miscarriage of justice. 12 Accordingly, the present case falls squarely within the parameters warranting interference under the inherent jurisdiction. The petition, therefore, deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The proceeding of Criminal Case No. 222/2023 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sakti under Section 420, 407, 408, 120-B, 34 of the IPC arising out of Charge Sheet No.26/2023, FIR of Crime No.10/2023 registered at Police Station Baradwar, Sakti and the order dated 20-05-2025 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti in Criminal Revision No.01/2025, only against the petitioners Manoj Kumar Singh, Jaisram Chaudhary and Aslam @ Abdul Salam, are hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil