1 2026:CGHC:17724-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1089 of 2026 Rameshwar Kumar Mehar S/o Baisakhu Ram Mehar Aged About 40 Years R/o Rambod, Police Station- Sargaon, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Chowki- Dindauri, Police Station- Chilphi, District- Mungeli (C.G.) 2. Shivnandan Singh Rathore Head Constable, Outpost- Dindauri, Police Station- Chilpi, District- Mungeli (C.G.) 3. Sam Global Mahindra Tractor Show-Room Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.) Through Its Authorized Authority 4. Bhuneshwar Rajput S/o Late Santram Rajput R/o Dabripara, Gandhidih, Police Station- Lormi, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.04.20 18:26:39 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 20.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “I. Allow this petition under Section 528 of BNSS filed by the petitioner. II. Quash the impugned FIR dated 09.12.2025 bearing Crime No. 184 of 2025 registered at Police Chowki- Dindauri, Police Station, Chilpi, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offene under Section 281, 125(a), 106(1) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. III. Quash the Final Report No. 8/2026 dated 10.03.2026 filed by Police Chowki-Dindauri, Police Station, Chilphi, District Mungeli before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lormi, District Mungeli (Annexure P/3) for the offence under Section 281, 125 (a), 125(b), 106(1) of BNS and Section 146, 196 of Motor Vehicles Act against the petitioner or delete the name of petitioner from the final report no. 8 of 2026. IV. Quash the cognizance order dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure P/4) and entire criminal proceedings 3 pending in Criminal Case No. 497 of 2026 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) against the petitioner or delete the name of petitioner from the Criminal Case No. 497 of 2026. V. 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 the petitioner was the recorded owner of the tractor bearing registration No. CG-10-D- 6291. It is submitted that on 14.06.2025, the petitioner exchanged the said tractor with respondent No. 3, namely Sam Global Mahindra Tractor Showroom, Mungeli, and purchased a new tractor through finance. An agreement to this effect was executed on the same date, and thereafter the petitioner ceased to have possession and control over the said tractor. 4. It is further submitted by learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner that on 27.09.2025, respondent No. 3 sold the said tractor to respondent No. 4 through a separate agreement, wherein the responsibility of transferring ownership in the RTO records was placed upon the purchaser. It is contended that respondent No. 4 became the actual owner and was in possession of the tractor. It is also submitted that on 13.11.2025, respondent No. 4, while driving the said tractor, caused the accident in question, resulting in the death of Narendra Kumar Baiga and injuries to Jagesh Yadav, and initially no allegation was made against the petitioner. 4 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that despite the petitioner having transferred the vehicle prior to the incident and having no possession or control over it, his name has been mechanically added as the owner in the charge-sheet dated 10.03.2026. It is contended that mere non-transfer of ownership in RTO records cannot fasten criminal liability upon the petitioner. He further contended that it was the responsibility of respondents No. 3 and 4 to effect transfer of ownership in official records, and any lapse on their part cannot be attributed to the petitioner. It is argued that even if the allegations in the FIR and material collected during investigation are taken at face value, no offence is made out against the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the implication of the petitioner is arbitrary and amounts to abuse of the process of law, and therefore the proceedings deserve to be quashed in light of the principles laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. 7. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings, insofar as they relate to the petitioner, be quashed. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the petition and submits that as per the records of the Regional Transport Office, the petitioner continued to be the registered owner of the offending vehicle on the date of the incident. It is submitted that no lawful transfer of ownership was effected in accordance with statutory 5 provisions, and therefore, the petitioner cannot escape liability at this stage. It is further submitted that the investigation has revealed due compliance of procedure, collection of cogent material, and filing of charge-sheet upon finding prima facie involvement. The question as to actual transfer, possession, and liability are matters of evidence to be adjudicated during trial and cannot be examined in proceedings under inherent jurisdiction. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. The scope of interference for quashing criminal proceedings is well settled. Such power is to be exercised sparingly and only when the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose any offence or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide. The Court is not required to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact at this stage. 11. In the present case, it is not in dispute that after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed and the learned trial Court has taken cognizance upon finding prima facie material disclosing commission of the alleged offences, and the matter is pending for trial. 12. A perusal of the FIR and charge-sheet reveals that on 13.11.2025 at about 5:00 p.m., near Ramunagar Ankharar Mod, the tractor bearing registration No. CG-10-D-6291, driven rashly and negligently, collided with motorcycle No. CG-28-L-2298, resulting in the death of Narendra Kumar Baiga and injuries to Jagesh Yadav. 6 13. The investigation further indicates that the vehicle stood registered in the name of the petitioner on the date of the incident. Though the petitioner claims to have transferred the vehicle, such transfer is not reflected in the official records. The material also shows that the vehicle was subsequently traced to respondent No. 4, who was driving it at the relevant time. 14. At this stage, this Court cannot conclusively determine the legal effect of the alleged transfer or the extent of liability arising therefrom. These are matters requiring evidence and adjudication during trial. The question whether the petitioner had completely divested himself of ownership is a mixed question of fact and law. 15. The contentions raised by the petitioner regarding absence of possession, control, or liability constitute matters of defence, which cannot be examined in proceedings for quashing. Similarly, the consequences of non-transfer of ownership in RTO records require proper adjudication before the learned trial Court. 16. The material collected during investigation, including RTO records and statements, prima facie discloses involvement warranting trial. It cannot be said that no case is made out against the petitioner. 17. The allegations are not so absurd or inherently improbable so as to justify interference at this stage. The case does not fall within the exceptional categories laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra). 18. Interference at this stage would amount to a premature evaluation of disputed facts and a mini trial, which is impermissible in law. 7 19. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned FIR, charge-sheet, or the proceedings pending before the trial Court. 20. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. However, it is clarified that any observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not influence the merits of the case during trial. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan