Mukul Pandey vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 1181 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Mukul Pandey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 April, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                          1




         Digitally
         signed by
         ANURADHA
                                                                   2026:CGHC:14880-DB
ANURADHA TIWARI
TIWARI   Date:
         2026.04.02                                                                   NAFR
         10:35:51
         +0530


                                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                              CRMP No. 793 of 2026

                      Mukul Pandey S/o Ashwani Pandey, Aged About 27 Years R/o 1 B
                      Colony, Quarter No. 51, Bishrmapur, Police Station Bishrampur, District-
                      Surajpur (C.G.)
                                                                                 ... Petitioner
                                                       versus
                      1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
                      Bishrampur, District- Surajpur (C.G.)
                      2 - Vikesh Kumar Singh S/o Vishwananth Singh Aged About 33 Years
                      R/o JMQ Colony, Ward No. 14, Pauvapara, Bishrampur, District-
                      Surajpur (C.G.)
                                                                             ... Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, 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. Gyan Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the

petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer

appearing for the State/respondent No.1.

2 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) It is therefore prayed, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this Petition and set-aside the impugned First Information Report dated 13/03/2025 registered in the police station Bishrampur, Surajpur, District Surajpur,.C.G., F.I.R. no. 0063/2025, police station Bishrampur for offences under section 296, 115 (2), 351 (3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

(ii) It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under section 528 of the BNSS, and in exercise thereof call for the records & allow this CRMP and quash/set aside final report bearing number 230/2025 dated 14/12/2025 for offences under section 296, 115 (2), 351 (3), 117 (3), 109 (1), 238, 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita prepared by Police Station Bishrampur, District Surajpur, C.G.

(iii) It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under section 528 of the BNSS, and in exercise thereof call for the records & allow this CRMP and quash/set aside taking of cognizance by court below on 20/01/2026 by Second Additional Session Judge Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) in criminal case against the petitioner bearing number criminal case, session

trial no. 13/2026 and entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner, in the interest of justice."

3 Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner,

vehemently submits that the entire prosecution case is manifestly

illegal, arbitrary and an abuse of the process of law. It is

contended that the genesis of the case itself is doubtful, inasmuch

as the alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 02.03.2025,

whereas the First Information Report came to be lodged after an

inordinate and unexplained delay on 13.03.2025. Such delay, in

absence of any cogent explanation, casts a serious cloud over the

veracity and authenticity of the prosecution story and indicates

embellishment and afterthought.

4 Mr. Shukla further submits that even if the entire allegations

contained in the F.I.R., final report and accompanying material are

taken at their face value, no offence, much less the offences

alleged, is made out against the present petitioner. It is specifically

argued that as per the prosecution case itself, the petitioner was

merely a pillion rider on the motorcycle and was not driving the

vehicle at the relevant point of time. Therefore, the essential

ingredient of control over the vehicle, which is sine qua non for

attributing liability for causing injury by use of a vehicle, is

completely absent in the present case. The actus reus, if any, can

only be attributed to the driver of the motorcycle and not to a

passive passenger having no control over the manner of driving.

5 It is further contended by Mr. Shukla that the implication of the

petitioner is actuated by malice and personal animosity, and he

has been falsely roped in only to give a wider net to the

prosecution case. Learned counsel submits that the subsequent

addition of serious penal provisions, including attempt to murder,

is a clear instance of over-implication with a view to exaggerate

the gravity of an otherwise minor incident. There is absolutely no

material on record to demonstrate any intention or knowledge on

the part of the petitioner to cause death or such bodily injury as is

likely to result in death, which is a foundational requirement for

invoking such a serious charge.

6 Mr. Shukla assails the investigation on the ground that the entire

case is built upon an unidentified and untraced vehicle. It is

submitted that despite completion of investigation and filing of the

final report, the alleged offending motorcycle has neither been

seized nor identified. Even the authorities from the Regional

Transport Office have expressed inability to identify the vehicle in

absence of registration particulars. The prosecution, therefore,

seeks to rely solely upon the memorandum statement of a co-

accused to connect the petitioner with the alleged vehicle, which

is clearly inadmissible in evidence in view of the settled principles

of law. In absence of the corpus delicti, the very foundation of the

prosecution case stands vitiated. Lastly, it is submitted that the

action of the investigating agency in issuing notice to the

petitioner to "produce" or "surrender" an unidentified vehicle is

wholly illegal and reflects a complete misdirection in the

investigation. The burden to establish the existence, identity and

involvement of the vehicle lies squarely upon the prosecution, and

the same cannot be shifted upon the accused. Such a

presumptive and speculative investigation, coupled with lack of

substantive evidence, renders the continuation of criminal

proceedings against the petitioner an exercise in futility and abuse

of the process of Court, warranting interference by this Court.

7 On the other hand, Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned State counsel

opposes the petition and supports the impugned action. It is

submitted that the First Information Report, the material collected

during investigation, and the final report clearly disclose the

commission of cognizable offences, and at this stage, a

meticulous examination of the evidence is neither warranted nor

permissible. The learned counsel contends that the scope of

interference under the inherent jurisdiction is extremely limited

and is to be exercised sparingly, only in cases where no prima

facie case is made out.

8 Mr. Sahu further submits that the role of the present petitioner

cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that he was a

pillion rider. It is argued that the investigation has revealed that

the petitioner was accompanying the co-accused at the time of

the incident and had actively participated in the occurrence, and

therefore, his liability is to be adjudicated during the course of trial.

Whether the petitioner shared common intention or had

knowledge of the act is a matter of evidence, which cannot be

conclusively determined at the stage of quashing.

9 It is submitted by Mr. Sahu that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. is

not fatal to the prosecution case, as the same has been

sufficiently explained by the complainant, who was under trauma

and undergoing treatment for the injuries sustained in the incident.

The learned counsel contends that such delay, by itself, cannot be

a ground to discard the prosecution version at the threshold,

particularly when the allegations disclose a serious offence.

10 Mr. Sahu further argues that the non-seizure or non-identification

of the vehicle at this stage does not demolish the prosecution

case, as the same is a matter of investigation and evidence. It is

contended that the statements of witnesses, including that of the

complainant, as well as other material collected during

investigation, prima facie establish the involvement of the accused

persons, including the present petitioner. The evidentiary value

and admissibility of such material are matters to be tested during

trial.

11 Lastly, it is submitted by Mr. Sahu that the contentions raised by

the petitioner pertain to disputed questions of fact, which cannot

be adjudicated in proceedings invoking extraordinary jurisdiction.

The learned counsel submits that the trial Court has rightly taken

cognizance upon perusal of the charge-sheet and accompanying

material, and no illegality or perversity can be attributed to the

same. Therefore, the present petition, being devoid of merit,

deserves to be dismissed.

12 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and

perused the documents annexed with the present petition.

13 Perusal of the charge-sheet, it appears that the investigating

agency, after conducting a detailed and structured investigation,

has collected material which prima facie establishes the

commission of cognizable offences and the involvement of the

accused persons therein. The First Information Report lodged by

the injured victim, namely Vikesh Kumar Singh, contains a vivid

and specific account of the incident, wherein clear allegations

have been levelled against the accused persons attributing

distinct roles to them. The narration of the incident in the F.I.R.

finds substantial support from the statements recorded during

investigation under the relevant provisions of law, thereby lending

credibility to the prosecution version at this stage.

14 It further transpires from the record that the injured victim was

admitted to District Hospital, Surajpur, where he remained under

treatment from 03.03.2025 to 08.03.2025. The medical

documents, including the bed-head ticket, have been duly

collected during investigation, and the opinion of the doctor

indicating the serious nature of injuries has formed the basis for

addition of further penal provisions. The medical evidence, thus,

prima facie corroborates the allegations made in the F.I.R.

regarding the manner and gravity of the assault. The preparation

of the spot map and other procedural steps undertaken during

investigation also indicate that the investigating agency has

attempted to gather all relevant evidence connected with the

incident.

15 This Court also takes note of the fact that during investigation, the

role of each accused has been examined, and statements have

been recorded pointing towards their involvement. The allegation

that the accused persons intentionally knocked down the victim

using a motorcycle and thereafter assaulted him, including

running over his leg, cannot be said to be inherently improbable or

absurd on the face of the record. Whether the petitioner had an

active role or whether his presence attracts vicarious liability are

questions which necessarily involve appreciation of evidence and

cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings of this nature.

16 So far as the contention of the petitioner regarding non-seizure or

non-identification of the offending motorcycle is concerned,

although the record indicates that efforts were made by the

investigating agency to trace and seize the vehicle, including

issuance of notice, search proceedings pursuant to warrant, and

seeking information from the Regional Transport Office, the

vehicle could not be recovered. However, such non-recovery of

the alleged weapon or vehicle used in the commission of offence

is not, by itself, fatal to the prosecution case at this preliminary

stage, particularly when there exists other material, including

ocular and medical evidence, supporting the prosecution story.

The evidentiary value and impact of such alleged deficiencies are

matters to be tested during trial.

17 This Court is also conscious of the settled principle of law that

while exercising jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings, it is

not permissible to embark upon a roving enquiry into the merits of

the case or to weigh the sufficiency of evidence. The defence put

forth by the petitioner, including allegations of false implication,

animosity, or lack of specific role, raises disputed questions of fact

which can only be adjudicated upon appreciation of evidence

before the trial Court.

18 At this stage, if the material on record discloses a prima facie

case, the proceedings ought not to be interdicted. In the

considered opinion of this Court, the material collected during

investigation, as reflected in the charge-sheet, cannot be said to

be so deficient or lacking as to warrant exercise of inherent

powers for quashing of proceedings.

19 The allegations, supported by medical and documentary

evidence, do make out a case for trial, and it would not be

appropriate for this Court to stifle the prosecution at its threshold.

20 Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid detailed discussion and

settled legal principles, this Court finds no merit in the present

petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.

21 There shall be no order as to cost(s).

                     Sd/-                                      Sd/-
           (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)                       (Ramesh Sinha)
                   Judge                                    Chief Justice
Anu