Chattisgarh High Court
Dileshwar Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:11389-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 668 of 2026
1 - Dileshwar Yadav S/o Late Chiharuram Yadav, Aged About 55 Years,
R/o Gudiyajor Kohilabinda, P/S Kurdeg, District Simdega, Jharkhand.
...Applicant/Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Director General of Police, Raipur,
Distt. Raipur C.G.
2 - Superintendent of Police Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G.
3 - Station House Officer, Police Station Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh
C.G.
... Respondents
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate.
For State : Mr. N.K. Jaiswal, Deputy Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
10-03-2026
1. Heard Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant Digitally signed by /petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.K. Jaiswal, learned Deputy Govt. MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.03.13 17:04:14 +0530 Advocate, appearing for the State.
2
2. The present petition has been filed seeking the following relief(s):-
"A. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the criminal proceeding of session trial no. 52/2025 registered against the Applicant at the Police Station Dharamjaigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) for an offence U/S 379, 365, 395, 397, 120(B), 412, 414, 307, 347, 356, 357, IPC AND 25, 27 OF ARMS ACT as well as quashment of the supplementary charge-sheet as well of the said offence as well as the Cognizance Taken On Dated 10.11.2025 In Session Case No. 52/2025 By Additional Session Judge Gharghoda District Raigarh C.G. for the Offences u/s 379, 365, 395, 397, 120(B), 412, 414, 307, 347, 356, 357, IPC AND 25, 27 OF ARMS ACT.
B. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly take appropriate against the Respondent No.3 for falsely implicate the Applicant in the alleged offence.
C. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as the Hon'ble Court may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. The facts of the case in brief are that, the complainant Abhishek Upadhyay made a written complaint to Police Station Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh that he is working as Assistant Officer at M/s Rupala Dham Steel Pvt. Ltd. and under his supervision 25 tons and 50 kg of 8MM, 10MM, and 12MM Maruti TMT steel bars valued Rs.14,03,679 was loaded into Truck No. 3 CG15AC1490 on June 22, 2024, for delivery to Shivariya Trading & Steels, Ramanujnagar, Surajpur and the truck departed from the company premises at about 7:00 PM. Later, it was reported that the driver had last communicated with the truck owner around 11:30 PM while at Jai Maa Ambe Dhaba in Dharamjaigarh, after which his phone was switched off. The consignment did not reach the buyer and he is having suspicion that the goods were stolen near Dharamjaigarh by unknown persons. On the basis of the report made by the complainant the police registered the offence under Section 379 of the IPC and started investigation. During the investigation, the statement of driver and helper of the truck and other witnesses were recorded and seizure of the property were made from the accused persons and charge sheet was initially filed on 31.08.2024 against three accused person showing three accused persons absconding and supplementary charge sheet has been filed on 12.09.2025 against the present applicant/petitioner and two other accused persons for the offence under Section 379, 365, 395, 397, 120(B), 412, 414, 307, 347, 356, 357 of IPC and Section 25, 27 of Arms Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant submits that the son of the applicant who is also an accused in the present case has surrendered and the petitioner/applicant has moved an application before the competent authority that no third degree method would be taken against his son and the Magistrate had made some observation against police, on account of which the 4 petitioner/applicant has also been arrayed as accused in the present case. He further submits that there appears to be no cogent and legal evidence against the applicant/petitioner and only as he made the application, the applicant has also been made accused in the case. As per the memorandum of son of applicant, out of Rs.1,00,000/-, he has given Rs.2,000/- to his father. There are six accused in the case including the son of the applicant and the charge sheet has been filed against the applicant also wherein there is no sufficient material to connect him with the alleged offence. Therefore, the proceeding so far as against the applicant/petitioner is concerned be quashed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the allegations levelled in the case disclose the commission of cognizable offences, which require appreciation of evidence and determination of disputed questions of fact, and the same cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the defence raised by the applicant/petitioner is matter of evidence which may be examined by the trial Court during trial and do not, by themselves, constitute a ground for quashment of the criminal proceedings at the threshold. Therefore, the petition filed by the applicant/petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition.
5
7. In M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 23 held as under :-
"23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or "no coercive steps to be adopted", during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or "no coercive steps to be adopted" during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:
i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;
iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been 6 observed, in the 'rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;"
8. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of 7 powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
9. The allegation against the present applicant is that, the son of the applicant is one of the accused in the case who looted steel bars along with other accused persons. On the memorandum statement of son of the applicant it has comes that he gave Rs.2000/- to the present applicant. However, in the memorandum statement of the present applicant he has stated that his son has taken a pick-up vehicle and sold it to somewhere and his son has informed that the pick-up vehicle met with an accident and he sold it, but he did not disclose where he has sold the pick-up vehicle and the applicant has denied that his son has given Rs.2000/- to him. There is allegation of theft, kidnapping, robbery, attempt to commit murder, receiving of stolen property and conspiracy. Considering cumulative facts and circumstances of the case and the manner in which the alleged offence is said to have been committed by the accused persons, we find sufficient material to proceed against the present applicant/petitioner. At this stage no specific part of involvement of the petitioner/applicant can be considered particularly when there are the other co-accused persons in the case. Further, the defence taken by the applicant are matter of evidence which may be examined by the trial Court during trial.
10. In light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment cited above and after considering the submissions made 8 by learned counsel for the parties, further considering the overall case which has been registered against the co-accused persons and involvement of the son of the petitioner/applicant, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Aadil