[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Balkaran Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally signed
2026:CGHC:15471-DB
SAGRIKA by SAGRIKA
AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date: 2026.04.07
10:53:17 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 956 of 2026
Balkaran Verma S/o Prabhuram Verma Aged About 46 Years R/o.-
Village Kevtara, Kharora, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through.- Station House Officer, Police
Station Tilda Newra, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Jageshwar Verma S/o Chandrika Prasad Verma Aged About 32
Years R/o.- Village Kevtara, Kharora, Police Station Kharora, District-
Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
06.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. Sunil Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as Mr. S. S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State/
respondent.
2. The present CrMP under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been
filed by the petitioner for quashing of the Charge-sheet/ Challan
No. 451/2025 dated 31.12.2025 in FIR No. 357/2025 dated
17.08.2025 of Station House Officer registered at Police Station
Tilda Newra, Dist- Raipur (CG) for the offence under Sections
105, 238 (B) and 3 (5) of B.N.S.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the present petition has been
filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of Charge
Sheet/Challan No. 451/2025 dated 31.12.2025 arising out of F.I.R.
No. 357/2025 dated 17.08.2025 registered at Police Station Tilda
Newra, District Raipur for offences under Sections 105, 238(B)
and 3(5) of the B.N.S., on the basis of a complaint lodged by
Respondent No.2, Jageshwar Verma. Initially, the petitioner had
approached this Hon'ble Court by filing Cr.M.P. No. 474/2026 for
quashing of the said F.I.R., wherein the Court directed the Senior
Superintendent of Police to explain the delay in investigation,
subsequently, it was informed that the charge-sheet had already
been filed and the petitioner had been granted bail by the learned
2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur on 29.08.2025, and the
said petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take
appropriate recourse against the charge-sheet, leading to the
filing of the present petition.
4. As per the contents of FIR, a merg inquiry was initiated at Police
Station Tilda Newra regarding the death of Omprakash Verma,
where during inspection and post-mortem examination it was
confirmed that the death occurred due to electrocution.
Investigation revealed that unknown persons had illegally installed
live electric wires in the field boundary with the intention of killing
wild animals. During further inquiry, it was found that the accused
persons, namely Chintaram Yadav, Vishram Dheewar, Dharam
Singh Yadav, and Balkaran Verma, had conspired and laid naked
electric wires connected to a power source from a nearby Radha
Krishna temple, spreading current over a distance to trap wild
boars. On the date of the incident, while waiting for animals, the
victim Omprakash Verma accidentally came into contact with the
live wire and died due to electric shock. After learning about the
incident, the accused persons removed and concealed the wires
in the jungle to destroy evidence. Subsequently, the materials
used in the offence, including electric wires and the motorcycle,
were recovered and seized, and upon finding sufficient evidence,
offences under Sections 105, 238(B), and 3(5) of the BNS were
registered, the accused were arrested and sent to judicial remand,
and Charge-sheet No. 451/2025 was filed before the competent
court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
implication of the petitioner in the present case is solely based on
the memorandum statement of co-accused, which is inadmissible
in evidence except to the limited extent of recovery, and in the
present case, no recovery or discovery has been made from the
petitioner, rendering such statement wholly inadmissible under
Section 23 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, that the
F.I.R. was initially registered against unknown persons and the
name of the petitioner does not appear therein, and his
subsequent implication without any independent evidence or
corroboration is illegal and amounts to abuse of process of law,
therefore, continuation of the proceedings including the charge-
sheet is unjustified, and in the interest of justice, the same
deserves to be quashed.
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the
State/respondent would submit that once the FIR has been
registered, it has to be investigated and taken to its logical end.
After investigation charge-sheet has been filed. Thus, at this
stage, no interference is warranted in view of the judgment of the
Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021 (M/s
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of
Maharashtra & others) and therefore, the present petition is
liable to be dismissed.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned FIR and document annexed with the petition.
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 powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C.
9. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court
has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While
examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the
Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or
otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The
power under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. is very wide, but conferment
of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court
has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the
F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under
Section 528 of B.N.S.S., only has to consider whether or not the
allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable
offence and is not required to consider the case on merit.
10. From perusal of the material annexed with the charge-sheet, there
is allegation against the present petitioner that he along with other
accused persons spreading electricity current on the barbed wires
of the boundary of the field. It is the present petitioner on whose
instance, they connected the electric wires with barbed wires in
the field by his nephew Om Prakash and he provided liquire to
them. Thereafter, the other accused persons laid naked electric
wires connected to a power source from a nearby temple and
then the incident occurred. There is sufficient material that the
present petitioner has actively participated in the alleged act along
with the other accused persons. From the statement of the
witnesses Sunil, Narayan and Dilip, the involvement of the
present petitioner in the offence in question is prima facie appears
which is sufficient to proceed against him with the trial.
11. After having gone through the allegations made in the impugned
FIR and the charge-sheet, in our opinion it cannot be said that no
offence whatsoever is disclosed against the petitioner and in the
light of judgment passed by the Apex Court in Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we do not find any good ground
for interference as it cannot be said that no offence is disclosed.
12. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
sagrika
