Rameshwar Kumar Mehar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 1857 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Rameshwar Kumar Mehar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 April, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                           1




                                                                          2026:CGHC:17724-DB
                                                                                         NAFR

                                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                              CRMP No. 1089 of 2026

                       Rameshwar Kumar Mehar S/o Baisakhu Ram Mehar Aged About 40

                       Years R/o Rambod, Police Station- Sargaon, District- Mungeli (C.G.)

                                                                                 ... Petitioner(s)

                                                        versus

                       1.   State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police

                            Chowki- Dindauri, Police Station- Chilphi, District- Mungeli (C.G.)

                       2.   Shivnandan Singh Rathore Head Constable, Outpost- Dindauri,

                            Police Station- Chilpi, District- Mungeli (C.G.)

                       3.   Sam Global Mahindra Tractor Show-Room Mungeli, District-

                            Mungeli (C.G.) Through Its Authorized Authority

                       4.   Bhuneshwar Rajput S/o Late Santram Rajput R/o Dabripara,

                            Gandhidih, Police Station- Lormi, District- Mungeli (C.G.)

                                                                               ...Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer.

          Digitally
          signed by
          BRIJMOHAN
BRIJMOHAN MORLE
MORLE     Date:
          2026.04.20
          18:26:39
          +0530


               Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
             Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
                              Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice


20.04.2026

1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the

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

appearing for the State.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayers:

"I. Allow this petition under Section 528 of BNSS filed by the petitioner.

II. Quash the impugned FIR dated 09.12.2025 bearing Crime No. 184 of 2025 registered at Police Chowki- Dindauri, Police Station, Chilpi, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offene under Section 281, 125(a), 106(1) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.

III. Quash the Final Report No. 8/2026 dated 10.03.2026 filed by Police Chowki-Dindauri, Police Station, Chilphi, District Mungeli before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lormi, District Mungeli (Annexure P/3) for the offence under Section 281, 125

(a), 125(b), 106(1) of BNS and Section 146, 196 of Motor Vehicles Act against the petitioner or delete the name of petitioner from the final report no. 8 of 2026.

IV. Quash the cognizance order dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure P/4) and entire criminal proceedings

pending in Criminal Case No. 497 of 2026 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) against the petitioner or delete the name of petitioner from the Criminal Case No. 497 of 2026.

V. Grant any other relief, which may be deemed fit in given facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of petitioner."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was

the recorded owner of the tractor bearing registration No. CG-10-D-

6291. It is submitted that on 14.06.2025, the petitioner exchanged the

said tractor with respondent No. 3, namely Sam Global Mahindra

Tractor Showroom, Mungeli, and purchased a new tractor through

finance. An agreement to this effect was executed on the same date,

and thereafter the petitioner ceased to have possession and control

over the said tractor.

4. It is further submitted by learned counsel, appearing for the

petitioner that on 27.09.2025, respondent No. 3 sold the said tractor to

respondent No. 4 through a separate agreement, wherein the

responsibility of transferring ownership in the RTO records was placed

upon the purchaser. It is contended that respondent No. 4 became the

actual owner and was in possession of the tractor. It is also submitted

that on 13.11.2025, respondent No. 4, while driving the said tractor,

caused the accident in question, resulting in the death of Narendra

Kumar Baiga and injuries to Jagesh Yadav, and initially no allegation

was made against the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that despite the

petitioner having transferred the vehicle prior to the incident and having

no possession or control over it, his name has been mechanically

added as the owner in the charge-sheet dated 10.03.2026. It is

contended that mere non-transfer of ownership in RTO records cannot

fasten criminal liability upon the petitioner. He further contended that it

was the responsibility of respondents No. 3 and 4 to effect transfer of

ownership in official records, and any lapse on their part cannot be

attributed to the petitioner. It is argued that even if the allegations in the

FIR and material collected during investigation are taken at face value,

no offence is made out against the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the implication of

the petitioner is arbitrary and amounts to abuse of the process of law,

and therefore the proceedings deserve to be quashed in light of the

principles laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in

1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

7. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned FIR and all

consequential proceedings, insofar as they relate to the petitioner, be

quashed.

8. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the

petition and submits that as per the records of the Regional Transport

Office, the petitioner continued to be the registered owner of the

offending vehicle on the date of the incident. It is submitted that no

lawful transfer of ownership was effected in accordance with statutory

provisions, and therefore, the petitioner cannot escape liability at this

stage. It is further submitted that the investigation has revealed due

compliance of procedure, collection of cogent material, and filing of

charge-sheet upon finding prima facie involvement. The question as to

actual transfer, possession, and liability are matters of evidence to be

adjudicated during trial and cannot be examined in proceedings under

inherent jurisdiction.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

10. The scope of interference for quashing criminal proceedings is

well settled. Such power is to be exercised sparingly and only when the

allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose any offence

or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide. The

Court is not required to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence or

adjudicate disputed questions of fact at this stage.

11. In the present case, it is not in dispute that after completion of

investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed and the learned trial

Court has taken cognizance upon finding prima facie material disclosing

commission of the alleged offences, and the matter is pending for trial.

12. A perusal of the FIR and charge-sheet reveals that on 13.11.2025

at about 5:00 p.m., near Ramunagar Ankharar Mod, the tractor bearing

registration No. CG-10-D-6291, driven rashly and negligently, collided

with motorcycle No. CG-28-L-2298, resulting in the death of Narendra

Kumar Baiga and injuries to Jagesh Yadav.

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




Brijmohan