Chattisgarh High Court
Gagan Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally 2026:CGHC:14879-DB
signed by
ANURADHA
ANURADHA TIWARI
TIWARI Date:
NAFR
2026.04.02
10:35:51
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 887 of 2026
Gagan Gupta S/o Chhedilal Gupta Aged About 42 Years R/o Korinbhata
Near Shitala Mandir P.S Basantpur District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Basantpur, District-
Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
2 - Xyz (Complainant/ Prosecutrix) (Note Is Prosecution Is Minor
Address Is Not Mentioned In Charge-Sheet)
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 01.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No.1.
2
2. The case has been listed in default on account of the defect that the address of respondent No. 2 has not been filed along with a closed envelope.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defect pointed out by the Registry has already been cured; as such, the matter may now be proceeded with in accordance with law.
4. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'B.N.S.S.') praying for following relief(s) :-
"(i) Quash and set aside the FIR bearing Crime No. 287/2025 dated 29.06.2025 registered at Police Station Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the alleged offences under Sections 64(2)(H) and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 5(Q) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, along with the Charge-sheet No. 288/2025 dated 01.08.2025 filed pursuant thereto.
(ii) Quash the cognizance order dated 11.08.2025 and the order framing charges dated 14.08.2025, consequential as well as all proceedings arising therefrom in Special (POCSO) Case No. 46/2025 titled "State of Chhattisgarh vs. Gagan Gupta and another", presently pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC (POCSO), Rajnandgaon.
(iii) Pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts 3 and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice."
5. Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire prosecution case is founded solely upon the statement of the prosecutrix, without any independent or corroborative material, and even the evidence collected during investigation does not support the allegations made in the FIR. It is contended that the Investigating Agency has failed to conduct a fair and complete investigation, inasmuch as crucial electronic evidence, which could have objectively established the presence or absence of the petitioner at the alleged place of occurrence, has been deliberately ignored.
6. It is further submitted by Mr. Bhardwaj that although the CCTV DVR installed at the petitioner's residence, being the alleged place of occurrence, was seized during investigation, the same was neither sent for forensic examination nor treated as an important piece of evidence by the Investigating Officer. Instead, reliance has been placed upon a pen drive without any certification or forensic verification of the original source, thereby rendering the entire electronic evidence legally inadmissible and unreliable. Learned counsel submits that such omission strikes at the very root of the prosecution case.
7. Mr. Bhardwaj also submits that the petitioner had, at the earliest point of time, disclosed a specific plea of alibi by way of 4 representation to the Superintendent of Police, stating that he was travelling with his family during the relevant period and had specifically requested the authorities to collect CCTV footage from toll plazas and other places. However, the Investigating Agency failed to conduct any inquiry into such material aspects and proceeded mechanically to file the charge-sheet, which clearly reflects a biased and one-sided investigation.
8. It is further contended by Mr. Bhardwaj that even during the bail proceedings, it was recorded that the CCTV footage of the relevant date and time did not reveal any incriminating material and that the petitioner's house was found locked. Despite such material being available on record, the prosecution has deliberately withheld the same in its proper form and has not produced any legally admissible electronic evidence to substantiate the allegations. The learned Trial Court, while rejecting the discharge application and framing charges, failed to consider these glaring infirmities in the investigation and has proceeded without proper application of mind. It is argued that even if the entire charge-sheet is taken at its face value, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.
9. Lastly, Mr. Bhardwaj submits that the petitioner is a permanent resident, has no criminal antecedents, and has cooperated 5 throughout the investigation. In absence of any legally sustainable material connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence, continuation of the trial would result in grave miscarriage of justice, and therefore, this is a fit case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned State counsel, opposes the petition and submits that the prosecution case is based on the specific and consistent statement of the prosecutrix, which clearly discloses the commission of a serious offence and is sufficient to proceed against the petitioner at this stage. It is contended that at the stage of framing of charge or considering a petition for quashment, a detailed appreciation of evidence is neither warranted nor permissible.
11. Mr. Sharma further submits that the investigation has been conducted in accordance with law and the charge-sheet has been filed after due consideration of the material collected during investigation. The veracity, reliability and evidentiary value of the material, including electronic evidence, are matters to be tested during trial and cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings at the threshold.
12. It is submitted by Mr. Sharma that the plea of alibi taken by the petitioner is a matter of defence, which requires evidence and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings of the present nature. The alleged discrepancies or lapses in investigation, even if assumed, 6 do not demolish the prosecution case at the threshold and cannot be a ground to stifle a legitimate prosecution.
13. Mr. Sharma lastly submits that a prima facie case is clearly made out against the petitioner and the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the discharge application and framed charges. The present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.
14. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the present petition.
15. From perusal of the charge-sheet, it appears that the prosecution, on the basis of the written report lodged by the victim, has set the criminal law into motion and has thereafter carried out investigation in accordance with law. During the course of investigation, the statement of the victim has been recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., her medical examination has been conducted, the place of occurrence has been inspected on her indication, the spot map has been prepared, and statements of other relevant witnesses have been recorded. The material so collected, including the version of the victim, prima facie discloses the manner in which the incident is alleged to have occurred and clearly attributes a specific role to the present petitioner as well as the co-accused. Upon due consideration of the entire material available on record, the Investigating Agency has found sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused persons and has accordingly filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court. 7
16. At this juncture, it is apposite to note that the scope of interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. is extremely limited. It is well settled that at the stage of considering a petition for quashment or interference with criminal proceedings, the Court is not expected to embark upon a meticulous appreciation of evidence or to evaluate the probative value of the material collected during investigation. The Court is only required to examine whether the allegations made in the charge-sheet, if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, disclose the commission of any offence. The defence sought to be raised by the petitioner, including the plea of alibi, alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution case, and the purported lapses in investigation, are all matters which require appreciation of evidence and can be effectively adjudicated only during the course of trial upon full-fledged examination and cross- examination of witnesses.
17. This Court further finds that the statement of the victim, which forms the foundation of the prosecution case, contains specific and categorical allegations against the petitioner. It is trite law that the statement of the victim of a sexual offence stands on a higher pedestal and, if found credible, can be sufficient to proceed against the accused without the necessity of corroboration at the initial stage. The veracity, reliability and evidentiary worth of such statement are matters to be tested during trial and not at the stage of invoking inherent jurisdiction. Therefore, merely because the 8 petitioner disputes the correctness of the allegations or seeks to rely upon certain materials in his defence, the same cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings at the threshold.
18. So far as the contention of the petitioner regarding alleged non-
consideration or improper handling of electronic evidence, including CCTV footage and other material, is concerned, this Court is of the view that even if there are certain deficiencies or lapses in the investigation, the same by itself would not be sufficient to discard the entire prosecution case at this stage. It is a settled principle of law that defective investigation cannot be a ground to quash criminal proceedings when there is otherwise prima facie material available on record disclosing the commission of an offence. Such aspects can be duly examined during trial, and the petitioner would be at liberty to raise all permissible contentions and to rely upon such material in his defence in accordance with law.
19. This Court also takes note of the fact that the learned Trial Court, upon consideration of the material available on record, has already rejected the discharge application and has proceeded to frame charges against the petitioner. The said order reflects that the Trial Court has applied its judicial mind to the material placed before it and has found that a prima facie case exists for proceeding against the accused. This Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the said approach warranting interference 9 in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. / 528 of the B.N.S.S..
20. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the material collected during investigation, particularly the statement of the victim and other supporting evidence, prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offences against the petitioner. The contentions raised by the petitioner essentially pertain to disputed questions of fact and matters of defence, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. Permitting interference at this stage would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution, which is impermissible in law.
21. Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings. The present petition, being devoid of merits and substance, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
22. There shall be no order as to cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Anu