[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Vipin Masih vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally
signed by
2026:CGHC:15937-DB
ANURADHA
ANURADHA TIWARI
TIWARI Date: NAFR
2026.04.09
10:23:34
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 975 of 2026
Vipin Masih S/o Virendra Masih, Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 04,
Shailendra Nagar, Ameri, Sakri, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Sarkanda, , Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
2 - Dr. Shrish Kumar Mishra S/o Late R.S. Mishra Aged About 49 Years
R/o B- 301, Puja Park, Near Muktidham Sarkanda, , Bilaspur, District-
Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate
For Respondent-State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
08.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. Basant Dewangan, learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advo-
cate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1.
2. By filing the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS'), the petitioner
has prayed for following relief(s) :-
"i. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
set- aside the impugned First Information
Report F.I.R. no. 0157/2026 dated 05/02/2026
registered at police station Sarkanda, Bilaspur,
District Bilaspur, (C.G.) for offences under
section 331(3) and 305(a) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita,
ii. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
set- aside the entire charge sheet number
98/2026 dated 13/02/2026 for offences under
section 331(3) and 305(a) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, prepared by Police Station
Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, C.G., The Hon'ble
Court may kindly set aside taking of
cognizance dated 17/02/2026 in criminal case
no 1080/2026 registered against the petitioner."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
F.I.R. dated 05.02.2026 as well as the Final Report dated
13.02.2026 and the consequential order of cognizance dated
17.02.2026 are wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled
principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is contended that even a
bare perusal of the allegations made in the F.I.R. would
demonstrate that no prima facie case is made out against the
petitioner for the offences alleged under the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, and the essential ingredients of the said offences
are conspicuously absent. He further submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case due to prior
animosity with the complainant, who had earlier employed the
petitioner as a driver. It is argued that the entire prosecution story
is inherently improbable and suffers from serious inconsistencies,
inasmuch as the allegation that the petitioner was found inside the
house in the manner stated is highly doubtful and appears to be a
concocted version aimed at falsely roping in the petitioner. The
investigation, it is urged, has not been conducted in a fair and
impartial manner and relevant aspects of the case have been
completely overlooked.
4. It is also submitted that the learned trial Court has mechanically
taken cognizance of the offence without properly appreciating the
material available on record. According to learned counsel, there
is no legally admissible evidence to connect the petitioner with the
alleged offence, and continuation of the criminal proceedings
would amount to abuse of the process of law. He also submits
that the petitioner has already been enlarged on bail and is
cooperating with the proceedings. It is contended that the
petitioner is a law-abiding citizen belonging to a respectable family
and has been unnecessarily dragged into criminal litigation,
causing grave prejudice to his reputation and livelihood.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is urged that this Court
may be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the
impugned F.I.R., Final Report and all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom, in the interest of justice.
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the petition
and submits that the impugned F.I.R. and the charge-sheet have
been filed after due investigation and there is sufficient material
available on record to prima facie establish the involvement of the
petitioner in the alleged offences. It is contended that the
allegations made in the F.I.R. clearly disclose the commission of
cognizable offences and the learned trial Court has rightly taken
cognizance of the same. It is further submitted that at this stage, a
detailed appreciation of evidence is not warranted and the
truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations can only be tested
during trial. Hence, no interference is called for in exercise of
inherent jurisdiction.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused
the material available on record.
8. From perusal of the charge-sheet, it appears that the prosecution
case is primarily based on the allegation that the petitioner, who
was previously employed as a driver by the complainant, had
knowledge of the house and the place where the keys were kept,
and on the date of incident i.e. 05.02.2026, he allegedly entered
the house by opening the lock with an intention to commit theft. It
further appears that the case of the prosecution rests upon the
statement of the complainant and his wife, who claimed that the
house was found locked from inside and upon forcible opening of
the door, it was suspected that the petitioner had entered the
premises and committed theft of an amount of Rs. 8,890/-. Thus,
from the material collected during investigation, it appears that the
involvement of the petitioner has been alleged on the basis of
prior acquaintance.
9. Considering the matter in its entirety, and upon careful evaluation
of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the material collected during
investigation, and the submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties, this Court is not required to undertake a meticulous
examination of evidence or adjudicate upon the veracity of the
rival claims, but only to ascertain whether a prima facie case is
disclosed from the material on record.
10. In the present case, the material available in the charge-sheet
prima facie indicates the involvement of the petitioner. It is not
disputed that the petitioner was previously employed as a driver
by the complainant and was well acquainted with the house as
well as the manner in which the keys were kept. The prosecution
case further suggests that on the date of incident, the petitioner
was found inside the house and was allegedly involved in
checking the valuables, and thereafter, an amount of Rs. 8,890/-
was found missing. Thus, at this juncture, it cannot be held that
the allegations are wholly baseless or do not disclose the
commission of any offence.
11. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner
regarding false implication, prior enmity, and improbability of the
prosecution story are matters which require appreciation of
evidence and can only be adjudicated during trial. Similarly, the
plea regarding improper investigation or mechanical taking of
cognizance does not, by itself, justify quashing of proceedings
when prima facie material exists on record.
12. It is a settled position of law that inherent jurisdiction is to be
exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and only in cases
where the allegations are patently absurd or where continuation of
proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. The
present case does not fall within such exceptional categories
warranting interference.
13. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no merit in the present
petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. It is, however,
clarified that the observations made herein are only for the
purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not influence
the trial Court, which shall proceed independently in accordance
with law.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Anu
