1 2026:CGHC:14285 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 140 of 2020 1 - Nandulal S/o Gainduram Bambode, Aged About 58 Years R/o Aktai, Police Station Ranitarai, Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ramdayal Chandrakar S/o Late Bhuwanlal, Aged About 65 Years R/o Motipara Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O昀케cer, Police Station Ranitarai, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Jaiprakash Thakur S/o Late Samaruram Thakur, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Aktai, Police Station Ranitarai, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.03.2026 1. Heard Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Palak Dwivedi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 2. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC”) seeking quashment of the challan/charge-sheet (Annexure-A) as well as the entire criminal proceedings, from inception to culmination, pending before the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Criminal Case No. 21/2015, on the ground that continuance of the same would amount to abuse of the process of law, and, therefore, prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that a criminal case bearing Crime No. 52/2014 came to be registered at Police Station Ranitarai at the instance of respondent No.2, on the basis of which, after due investigation, the police authorities 昀椀led a charge-sheet before the Court of the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) for the o昀昀ences punishable under Sections 326 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. It is stated that the accused persons, having been arrested on 08.10.2014 and subsequently enlarged on bail, have since been facing trial in Criminal Case No. 21/2015 before the said Court. It is further borne out from the record that, subsequently, at the instance of the complainant Nandlal, a separate complaint came to be instituted on 09.11.2017, pursuant 3 to which summons were issued against certain persons namely Jaiprakash Thakur, Ramkhilawan and Nohar Sahu for various o昀昀ences punishable under Sections 166, 167, 218, 219, 193, 196, 211, 182, 500, 420, 468, 471, 120, 120-B and 34 of the IPC, along with Sections 326 and 338 of the IPC. 4. Consequently, the said complaint was registered as Complaint Case No. 509/2017 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patan. On the strength of the aforesaid sequence of events, it is contended by the petitioners that the very initiation of proceedings and 昀椀ling of the charge-sheet against them, as well as continuation of trial before the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, is wholly arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and contrary to settled principles of criminal law, rendering the same liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers of this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the charge-sheet 昀椀led by the police authorities is entirely misconceived, baseless and su昀昀ers from grave legal in昀椀rmities. It is contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are devoid of any substantive material and are founded merely on conjectures, surmises and unsubstantiated assertions, which do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the o昀昀ences alleged. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated 4 due to ulterior motives and personal vendetta, and that the investigating agency has failed to conduct a fair, impartial and objective investigation in accordance with law. According to the learned counsel, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, in the absence of any prima facie case, amounts to gross abuse of the process of Court and would result in miscarriage of justice. Hence, it is urged that this Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, ought to intervene and quash the impugned charge-sheet as well as the entire proceedings arising therefrom. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has also opposed the petition and submits that the impugned charge-sheet has been 昀椀led strictly in accordance with law after due and proper investigation conducted by the competent police authorities. It is contended that the material collected during the course of investigation clearly discloses the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged o昀昀ences, and as such, a prima facie case is made out against them warranting their prosecution. Learned State counsel further submits that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, and only in cases where no o昀昀ence is made out on the face of the record. In the present 5 case, since the allegations and the evidence collected require appreciation during trial, interference at this stage would be unwarranted. Therefore, it is prayed that the petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. Perusal of the charge-sheet, it appears that the prosecution has, after conducting due investigation, collected material indicating that on 17.04.2014, the applicant, while working in a stone quarry and engaged in the process of blasting by 昀椀lling gunpowder and gravel in drilled holes, sustained grievous injuries resulting in damage to both his eyes due to an explosion. The charge-sheet further re昀氀ects that the incident occurred in the quarry allegedly being operated under the supervision of the accused persons, and that there was prima facie non-compliance with statutory requirements relating to handling and use of explosive substances. It is also borne out that the investigating agency has seized materials from the spot, which upon examination were found to contain residue of chemical nitrates, thereby lending support to the prosecution version regarding use of explosive substances. The material collected during investigation, including statements of witnesses and seizure memos, prima facie discloses involvement of 6 the accused persons in the alleged o昀昀ences, and accordingly, a charge-sheet has been 昀椀led before the competent Court. 9. At this juncture, it is well-settled that while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, this Court does not sit as a Court of appeal to meticulously examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet or to conduct a roving enquiry into disputed questions of fact. The scope of interference at this stage is limited to ascertaining whether the allegations, as they stand, prima facie constitute an o昀昀ence or whether the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala 昀椀de or instituted with ulterior motives. In the present case, the contents of the charge-sheet and the material accompanying it cannot be said to be so absurd or inherently improbable so as to warrant interference by this Court. 10. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, primarily relating to false implication, lack of evidence, and improper investigation, are essentially matters of defence, which require appreciation of evidence and can only be adjudicated upon by the trial Court after the parties lead evidence. Such disputed questions cannot be gone into in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. At this stage, what is required to be seen is the existence of a prima facie case, and not the su昀케ciency or reliability of the evidence. 7 11. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the material available on record discloses a prima facie case against the petitioners, and the continuation of criminal proceedings cannot be said to be an abuse of the process of Court. No case is made out for exercising inherent powers to quash the charge-sheet or the consequential proceedings. 12. Accordingly, the instant petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar