[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
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. 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
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
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
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,
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.
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
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
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
