1 2026:CGHC:15937-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 975 of 2026 Vipin Masih S/o Virendra Masih, Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 04, Shailendra Nagar, Ameri, Sakri, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sarkanda, , Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Dr. Shrish Kumar Mishra S/o Late R.S. Mishra Aged About 49 Years R/o B- 301, Puja Park, Near Muktidham Sarkanda, , Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 08.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Basant Dewangan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advo- cate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.04.09 10:23:34 +0530 2 2. By filing the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “i. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned First Information Report F.I.R. no. 0157/2026 dated 05/02/2026 registered at police station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, (C.G.) for offences under section 331(3) and 305(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, ii. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the entire charge sheet number 98/2026 dated 13/02/2026 for offences under section 331(3) and 305(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, prepared by Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, C.G., The Hon'ble Court may kindly set aside taking of cognizance dated 17/02/2026 in criminal case no 1080/2026 registered against the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned F.I.R. dated 05.02.2026 as well as the Final Report dated 13.02.2026 and the consequential order of cognizance dated 17.02.2026 are wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is contended that even a bare perusal of the allegations made in the F.I.R. would demonstrate that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for the offences alleged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the essential ingredients of the said offences 3 are conspicuously absent. He further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case due to prior animosity with the complainant, who had earlier employed the petitioner as a driver. It is argued that the entire prosecution story is inherently improbable and suffers from serious inconsistencies, inasmuch as the allegation that the petitioner was found inside the house in the manner stated is highly doubtful and appears to be a concocted version aimed at falsely roping in the petitioner. The investigation, it is urged, has not been conducted in a fair and impartial manner and relevant aspects of the case have been completely overlooked. 4. It is also submitted that the learned trial Court has mechanically taken cognizance of the offence without properly appreciating the material available on record. According to learned counsel, there is no legally admissible evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. He also submits that the petitioner has already been enlarged on bail and is cooperating with the proceedings. It is contended that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen belonging to a respectable family and has been unnecessarily dragged into criminal litigation, causing grave prejudice to his reputation and livelihood. 5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is urged that this Court may be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the 4 impugned F.I.R., Final Report and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, in the interest of justice. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the impugned F.I.R. and the charge-sheet have been filed after due investigation and there is sufficient material available on record to prima facie establish the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences. It is contended that the allegations made in the F.I.R. clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences and the learned trial Court has rightly taken cognizance of the same. It is further submitted that at this stage, a detailed appreciation of evidence is not warranted and the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations can only be tested during trial. Hence, no interference is called for in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record. 8. From perusal of the charge-sheet, it appears that the prosecution case is primarily based on the allegation that the petitioner, who was previously employed as a driver by the complainant, had knowledge of the house and the place where the keys were kept, and on the date of incident i.e. 05.02.2026, he allegedly entered the house by opening the lock with an intention to commit theft. It further appears that the case of the prosecution rests upon the statement of the complainant and his wife, who claimed that the 5 house was found locked from inside and upon forcible opening of the door, it was suspected that the petitioner had entered the premises and committed theft of an amount of Rs. 8,890/-. Thus, from the material collected during investigation, it appears that the involvement of the petitioner has been alleged on the basis of prior acquaintance. 9. Considering the matter in its entirety, and upon careful evaluation of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the material collected during investigation, and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is not required to undertake a meticulous examination of evidence or adjudicate upon the veracity of the rival claims, but only to ascertain whether a prima facie case is disclosed from the material on record. 10. In the present case, the material available in the charge-sheet prima facie indicates the involvement of the petitioner. It is not disputed that the petitioner was previously employed as a driver by the complainant and was well acquainted with the house as well as the manner in which the keys were kept. The prosecution case further suggests that on the date of incident, the petitioner was found inside the house and was allegedly involved in checking the valuables, and thereafter, an amount of Rs. 8,890/- was found missing. Thus, at this juncture, it cannot be held that the allegations are wholly baseless or do not disclose the commission of any offence. 6 11. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding false implication, prior enmity, and improbability of the prosecution story are matters which require appreciation of evidence and can only be adjudicated during trial. Similarly, the plea regarding improper investigation or mechanical taking of cognizance does not, by itself, justify quashing of proceedings when prima facie material exists on record. 12. It is a settled position of law that inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and only in cases where the allegations are patently absurd or where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. The present case does not fall within such exceptional categories warranting interference. 13. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not influence the trial Court, which shall proceed independently in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu