1 2026:CGHC:19747-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1211 of 2026 Chandraprakash Sahu S/o Manharan Lal Sahu Aged About 33 Years Occupation - Vehicle Owner, R/o - Matachoura, Purana Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O. of the Police Station - Tamnar, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 29 . 04 .202 6 1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bhatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the following prayers:- ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 “1. To kindly quash the F.I.R. dated 06-07-2019 bearing Crime No. 117/2019, Registered at Police Station Tamnar, District 19 Raigarh (C.G.) against the Petitioner. 2. To kindly quash the impugned Final Report No. 226/2025 dated-03-11-2025, filed against the petitioner Under Section 407, 34, 212 of the I.P.C. and Sec. 179(1,2) of the Motor Vehicle Act. 3. To kindly quash the impugned order dated 22-11-2025 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Gharghoda, (Preeti Jha) District Raigarh (C.G.) has taken the cognizance of the impugned charge sheet and registered the impugned criminal proceedings as Criminal Case No. 732 of 2025 against the petitioner.” 3. The prosecution's case arises from a written complaint lodged by the complainant, Sameer Khan, on 06.07.2019, before the Police Station Tamnar, District Raigarh. The complainant, working as a Manager in Anoop Road Carrier, alleged that on 20.06.2019, coal was being transported from Kusmunda Korba to Jindal Power Plant, Tamnar. During a surprise inspection by Jindal’s management officials, it was found that coal in several vehicles (bearing numbers CG1250818, CG15AC4522, CG15AC1330, CG04JC0380, CG07CA3095, and CG10AM7647) was of substandard quality, with ash char and slag mixed in it. The Jindal officials informed the complainant’s transport company about this issue. Upon questioning the drivers, they fled the site disguised as helpers in other vehicles. As a result, the complainant requested action against the drivers named Rajesh, Mahadev, Ajay, Sahettar, Vinod, and Rizwan, who were subsequently marked as 3 absconding. The Tamnar police filed a charge sheet on 21.11.2025, accusing the petitioner along with other vehicle owners under sections 407, 34, 212 of IPC, and sections 179(1) and (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, despite the drivers absconding. The petitioner claims that he was wrongly implicated, as he had no knowledge of the drivers' actions and was not even the owner of the vehicles in question. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge sheet filed against the petitioner is legally unsustainable and should be quashed. He further submits that the allegations against the petitioner are vague and lacking in substance, making it clear that no criminality can be attributed to him. The petitioner was neither involved in the alleged offence nor had any knowledge of the actions of the drivers who are named as absconding. Furthermore, the petitioner was only seeking interim custody of the vehicle in question, based on his special power of attorney, and is not the owner of the vehicles involved. The registration details of the vehicles confirm that the petitioner does not own them, and as such, the charges under Section 407 (criminal breach of trust by carrier), Section 34 (common intention), and Section 212 (harbouring a criminal) of IPC, as well as Section 179(1) and (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, are not applicable to him. He further submits that for Section 407 IPC to apply, there must be entrustment of property to the accused and a dishonest misappropriation. Ownership of the vehicle alone is insufficient to 4 attract liability under this section, especially when no specific allegations have been made regarding the petitioner’s involvement in the crime or knowledge of the dishonest actions of the drivers. Moreover, for Section 212 IPC (harbouring an offender), there must be an intention to conceal or screen the offender from legal punishment. There is no evidence or allegation that the petitioner provided shelter or assistance to the drivers in any way. In support of his submission, the learned counsel cites the case of ARCI v. Nimra Cerglass Technics (P) Ltd. (2016) 1 SCC 348, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court clarified the difference between breach of contract and criminal offence, emphasizing that criminal liability arises only when dishonest intent is established at the time of the transaction. He finally submits that that the complainant's story appears to be a deliberate attempt to frame the petitioner, creating undue pressure on him with malicious intent. The charge sheet is based on a false and cleverly drafted complaint, aimed at dragging the petitioner into a criminal case, and as such, the entire proceedings deserve to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the allegations in the FIR and charge sheet are serious and warrant thorough investigation. The complaint lodged by the complainant, Sameer Khan, indicates that the vehicles owned by the petitioner were used to transport substandard coal, which was found to contain ash char and slag, leading to a violation of the transportation 5 contract. The charge sheet names the petitioner as one of the vehicle owners involved in the alleged offence, and while the drivers are absconding, the fact remains that the vehicles were used in the commission of the offence. He further submits that ownership of the vehicles, coupled with the transportation of the coal, gives rise to a presumption of responsibility under Section 407 IPC (criminal breach of trust by carrier). Even if the petitioner did not personally handle the coal, he may still be liable under this provision if the vehicles were entrusted to him for transportation purposes. He also submits that the charge under Section 212 IPC for harbouring offenders is also not misplaced, as the vehicles were part of a larger scheme involving criminal conduct, and the petitioner may have knowledge of or involvement in the illegal activities. 6. After considering rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State counsel and from perusal of the materials available on record, it is clear that the allegations against the petitioner, although contested, involve serious accusations related to the transportation of substandard coal. The petitioner, as an owner of the vehicles used in the commission of the alleged offence, cannot absolve himself of liability merely based on his claim of having no knowledge of the actions of the drivers. The charge sheet has been filed with due regard to the fact that the vehicles owned by the petitioner were directly involved in the illegal transportation, and there is sufficient 6 material to proceed with the investigation and trial. 7. The petitioner’s argument that the charge sheet is based on vague allegations or a fabricated story does not outweigh the prima facie evidence that has been presented. The delay in lodging the FIR, while a point of contention, does not necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case. The law requires a detailed investigation to establish the facts, and at this stage, there is insufficient ground to quash the charge sheet. 8. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The petitioner will have the opportunity to contest the charges during the trial process. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra