1 2026:CGHC:20357-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1224 of 2026 Vikash Kumar Gupta Son Of Sanjay Gupta Aged About 33 Years Resident Of Pahadi Para, Gondwara Road, Near Sai Mandir, Gudhiyari, P.S. Gudhiyari District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - The Director General Of Police Police Department, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Of Police Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Station House Officer Police Station Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Raj Kumar Tandon Son Of Jagmohan Tandon Aged About 36 Years Resident Of Gullu Arang, Police Station Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Dr. Sourabh Pande, Dy. A.G. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.05.02 11:29:10 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 01.05.2026 1. Heard Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Dr. Sourabh Pande, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents No.1 to 4 / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “1. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under section 528 of B.N.S. 2023 filed by the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 2. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the charge sheet dated 01.03.2026 and FIR bearing No. 53/2026 registered on dated 27.01.2026 at police station Arang, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh filed under section 303(2), 317(2), 3(5) of B.N.S. against the petitioner in the interest of justice. 3. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash entire charge sheet dated 10.03.2026 before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Arang, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh under section 303(2), 317(2), 3(5) of B.N.S. against the petitioner in the interest of justice. 4. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash cognizance dated 11.03.2026 taken by the 3 learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, in the interest of justice. 5. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash entire criminal proceeding of Criminal case No. 350/2026 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Arang, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh against the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 6. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly grant any other reliefs in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant lodged a report at Police Station Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) alleging that on 20.01.2026 at about 3:00 PM, certain unknown persons committed theft of four gas cylinders from near his shop. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered FIR bearing Crime No. 53/2026 for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 303(2), 317(2), and 3(5) of the B.N.S. against unknown persons. It is the case of the prosecution that, during the course of investigation, the present petitioner has been implicated merely on the basis of suspicion. Upon completion of investigation, the police have filed the charge-sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arang, District Raipur, and the matter is presently at the stage of trial. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR and subsequent proceedings are wholly illegal, arbitrary, and amount to an abuse of the process of law, as the petitioner has been falsely implicated on the basis of a concocted and fabricated story without any cogent evidence. It is contended that there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the alleged incident having occurred on 20.01.2026 whereas the FIR was registered on 27.01.2026, thereby casting serious doubt on the prosecution case. It is further submitted that no incriminating article has been seized from the possession of the petitioner, and the alleged seizure itself is manipulated, inasmuch as the number of cylinders shown exceeds those registered in the name of the petitioner’s family. Learned counsel also submits that multiple FIRs have been registered on the same day in respect of similar allegations, which is impermissible in law and indicative of mala fide action. It is argued that a bare perusal of the FIR does not disclose any specific role or overt act attributable to the petitioner and, even if the entire allegations are taken at face value, no offence under Sections 303(2), 317(2), and 3(5) of the B.N.S. is made out. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already been granted bail by the learned trial Court, and complaints made by the petitioner and his family members (Annexure P-3) further demonstrate false implication. Thus, continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process and deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice. 5 5. Learned State counsel appearing for the State opposes the petition and submits that the present petition is misconceived and not maintainable at this stage, as the investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet has been duly filed before the competent Court. It is further submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arang Raipur has already taken cognizance of the offences on the basis of material collected during investigation, and the matter is presently pending for consideration on the point of framing of charges. It is contended that sufficient material exists on record disclosing a prima facie case against the petitioner, and therefore, the proceedings cannot be interdicted at this preliminary stage. Learned State counsel further submits that the issues raised by the petitioner pertain to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and are matters to be tested during trial. It is thus prayed that no interference is called for and the petition deserves to be dismissed in the interest of justice. 6. Further, a bare perusal of the charge-sheet, in the present status of the case, reveals that the alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 20.01.2026 between 11:00 hrs to 13:30 hrs, wherein, on the written complaint of Raj Kumar Tandon, it was alleged that two unknown persons had stolen four filled HP domestic gas cylinders from in front of Rajhans Choice Center, situated near Gullu Bus Stand. During the course of investigation, the police 6 implicated accused Kanhaiyalal Rajpal on the basis of his memorandum statement, wherein he allegedly confessed that he, along with co-accused Mukesh Kukreja, committed the theft of the said cylinders and further disclosed involvement in multiple similar incidents of theft of gas cylinders at different places during December 2025 and January 2026, totaling 13 cylinders, which were allegedly sold to co-accused Vikas Gupta. On the basis of such disclosure, limited recovery was effected, and two empty HP cylinders were seized from the possession of Kanhaiyalal Rajpal, while Vikas Gupta allegedly admitted to purchasing the cylinders without any supporting documents, leading to addition of Section 317(2) of B.N.S. against him. The accused persons, namely Kanhaiyalal Rajpal and Vikas Gupta, were arrested on 28.01.2026, and co-accused Mukesh Kukreja was formally arrested on 20.02.2026 after obtaining permission from the competent court. During investigation, certain seized cylinders were released to their respective owners under orders of the court, and statements of witnesses, memorandum statements, seizure memos, and other documentary evidence were collected. On completion of investigation, the police concluded that offences were made out against the aforesaid accused persons and accordingly filed charge-sheet No. 80/2026 dated 10.03.2026 before the competent court. However, the implication of the present petitioner is stated to be based primarily on such memorandum statements and lacks independent corroborative 7 evidence. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly considering that the charge-sheet has already been filed and cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court, and further that during the course of investigation seizure of gas cylinders has been effected in connection with the alleged offence, forming part of the material on record, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction for quashing of the impugned FIR and criminal proceedings. The submissions of the petitioner regarding false implication, absence of recovery from his possession, and multiplicity of cases involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated at this stage and are required to be tested during trial on the basis of evidence. At this juncture, the material collected by the prosecution discloses a prima facie case against the petitioner, and therefore, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet