Chattisgarh High Court
Md. Junaid Chauhan @ Md. Junaidraza ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally
2026:CGHC:11554-DB
signed by
ANURADHA NAFR
ANURADHA TIWARI
TIWARI Date:
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
2026.03.12
10:39:07
+0530
CRMP No. 676 of 2026
Md. Junaid Chauhan @ Md. Junaidraza Chouhan S/o Yusuf Chauhan
Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. Raza Colony Deen Dayal Upadhyay
Nagar, Nayapara, Rajim, Dist- Gariyabandh, ( C.G. ).
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station
Rajim, District- Gariyaband, ( C.G. ).
2 - Manrakhan Dewangan S/o Narayan Dewangan, Aged About 43
Years R/o- Ward No. 1, Gandhi Nagar, Rajim, District- Gariyaband
( C.G. ).
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy Government No.1/State Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 11.03.2026 1 Heard Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1.
22 The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') with the following relief(s):-
"I. To kindly quash the FIR No. 78/2023, dated 28/02/2023, registered at Police Station Rajim, Gariyanand, (C.G.)..[ANNEXURE A/1] II. To kindly quash the impugned final report bearing no. 241/2023 dated 09/09/2023, in crime no. 78/2023 filed against the Petitioner under section 279, 304A of I.P.C. and Sections 3/181, 5/180, 56/192, 66/192 and 50/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. [ANNEXURE A/3] III. To kindly quash the impugned order dated 11/12/2023 whereby the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajim, Dist- Gariyaband has taken cognizance of the impugned chargesheet and registered the impugned criminal proceedings as criminal case no. 710/2023 against the Petitioner. [ANNEXURE A/4] IV. To pass such other orders as it may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioners against the respondent."
3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and the entire prosecution is based upon conjectures and surmises without there being any cogent material connecting the petitioner with the alleged offences. It is contended that the truck bearing registration 3 No. CG04-CW-1184 was admittedly registered in the name of Akbar Solanki and, as per the prosecution case itself, the said vehicle had already been sold to one Mohd. Athar Rizvi for the purpose of scrapping much prior to the alleged incident. The petitioner was neither the registered owner of the vehicle nor has any lawful transfer been shown in his favour in the records of the Transport Department. In such circumstances, fastening criminal liability upon the petitioner is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable in law. He further submits that the prosecution story suffers from serious contradictions and inherent improbabilities. The statements of the driver Ravikumar Yadav and other witnesses, which form the foundation of the prosecution case, are materially inconsistent and self-contradictory. It is also pointed out that the alleged Iqarnama and the stamp papers relied upon during the investigation do not contain the particulars of the alleged seller and purchaser and even the Notary concerned has admitted that the details were not entered in his register due to haste. Such doubtful and unverified documents cannot legally form the basis of criminal prosecution against the petitioner. 4 It is argued that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner, including those under Sections 279, 304-A and 420 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, are completely absent. There is no material on record to establish any act of rash or negligent driving on the 4 part of the petitioner, nor is there any evidence to demonstrate the existence of dishonest intention or mens rea necessary for constituting the offence of cheating. The petitioner had duly responded to the notices issued under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and had clearly stated that he had no knowledge of the allegations made against him. He lastly submits that even if the entire material collected during investigation is taken at its face value, no offence is made out against the petitioner and the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. It is thus prayed that the impugned FIR, charge-sheets and the consequential criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner deserve to be quashed.
5 On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the impugned prosecution has been initiated after a thorough investigation conducted by the police authorities. Learned State counsel submits that on the basis of the report lodged by the complainant Manrakhan Dewangan on 28.02.2023, Crime No. 78/2023 was registered at Police Station Rajim under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code in relation to a fatal road accident in which two persons lost their lives. During the course of investigation, the spot was inspected, statements of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded and the motorcycle of the deceased as well as the offending truck bearing 5 registration No. CG04-CW-1184 were seized from the driver Ravikumar Yadav. It is further submitted that during investigation, upon seeking information from the Regional Transport Office and issuing notice to the registered owner Akbar Solanki, it came to light that the vehicle had allegedly been sold earlier and that the number plate was being misused. A physical verification of the seized truck was thereafter conducted by a vehicle surveyor, who reported that the chassis number of the vehicle had been tampered with. On the basis of the memorandum statements of the driver Ravikumar Yadav and the welding shop owner Mohammad Yakub Solanki, it was revealed that the vehicle was being used by the present petitioner for transportation purposes. In view of such material, a separate Crime No. 246/2023 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was also registered against the petitioner for tampering with the chassis number and using the vehicle dishonestly.
6 Learned State counsel also submits that during the course of investigation it was also found that the driver was permitted to drive the vehicle without possessing a valid driving licence and the vehicle itself did not have valid insurance and fitness certificates, on account of which offences under Sections 3/181, 5/180, 56/192, 66/192 and 50/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act were also added. It is submitted that after completion of investigation and upon finding sufficient material against the accused persons, 6 charge-sheet No. 241/2023 dated 09.09.2023 has been filed before the competent Court and cognizance has already been taken. Therefore, at this stage, when the investigation has culminated in the filing of the charge-sheet and prima facie material exists on record, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
7 We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material placed on record.
8 From a perusal of the charge-sheet and the documents appended therewith, it transpires that the criminal proceedings in question have arisen out of Crime No. 78/2023 registered at Police Station Rajim for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code in relation to a road accident which occurred on 28.02.2023, resulting in the death of two persons. The record further indicates that during the course of investigation the motorcycle of the deceased as well as the offending truck bearing registration No. CG04-CW-1184 were seized from the driver Ravikumar Yadav and the statements of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded. Upon seeking information from the Regional Transport Office and issuing notice to the registered owner of the vehicle, it was revealed that the vehicle had allegedly been sold earlier and that the number plate of the said vehicle was being misused. A physical verification of the seized truck was thereafter conducted by a vehicle surveyor, who 7 reported that the chassis number of the vehicle had been tampered with.
9 The investigation further discloses that the memorandum statements of the driver Ravikumar Yadav and the welding shop owner Mohammad Yakub Solanki were recorded, wherein it was stated that the vehicle was being used by the present petitioner. On the basis of such material, a separate Crime No. 246/2023 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was also registered against the petitioner for allegedly tampering with the chassis number of the vehicle and using the same for transportation purposes. During investigation, it was also found that the driver had been permitted to operate the vehicle without a valid driving licence and that the vehicle did not possess valid insurance and fitness certificates, on account of which offences under Sections 3/181, 5/180, 56/192, 66/192 and 50/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act were also added. After completion of investigation and upon finding prima facie material against the accused persons, the investigating agency has filed charge-sheet No. 241/2023 dated 09.09.2023 before the competent Court and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has already taken cognizance of the offences.
10 At this stage, it is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure / corresponding provisions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya 8 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the Court does not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or otherwise of the allegations made in the charge-sheet, nor can it appreciate the evidence in detail to determine the veracity of the prosecution case. If the material collected during investigation discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and a prima facie case is made out, the criminal proceedings ought not to be interdicted at the threshold. The defence sought to be raised by the petitioner, including the plea regarding ownership of the vehicle, alleged inconsistencies in witness statements, and other factual aspects, are matters which require appreciation of evidence and can appropriately be considered by the trial Court during the course of trial. 11 In the considered opinion of this Court, the material collected during investigation and reflected in the charge-sheet cannot be said to be so absurd or inherently improbable so as to warrant exercise of the inherent powers of this Court for quashing the criminal proceedings. The issues raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings of the present nature. The petitioner would be at liberty to raise all permissible defences before the trial Court in accordance with law.
12 Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observation made herein is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and 9 shall not prejudice the case of either party during the course of trial before the competent Court.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Anu