[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Uday Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 February, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:9920-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 599 of 2026
1 - Uday Kumar S/o Trilochan, Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Raliya,
P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur C.G.
2 - Sonuram Lahre, S/o Bhuklu Lahre, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village
Raliya, P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur C.G.
3 - Lalit Kumar, S/o Umend Lal Kurrey, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village
Raliya, P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur C.G.
4 - Manjita Arya S/o Baisakhu Lal, Aged About 66 Years R/o Village
Raliya, P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur C.G.
5 - Umendlal Kurrey, S/o Late Mithailal, Aged About 60 Years R/o
Village Raliya, P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur C.G.
6 - Yash Kumar Ratre, S/o Ratiram Ratre, Aged About 25 Years R/o
Village Raliya, P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur C.G.
7 - Rahul @ Shani, S/o Bharat @ Lal Soni, Aged About 50 Years R/o
Village Raliya, P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur C.G.
... Petitioners
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Masturi, District Bilaspur C.G.
2 - Meher Raj, S/o Late Y.A. Muniraj, R/o Mig 1/58, Maharana Pratap
Nagar, Korba, District Korba C.G.
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer
ROHIT
KUMAR
CHANDRA Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
26.02.2026
1. Heard Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioners
as well as Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing
for the State/respondent.
2. Defaults pointed out by the Registry stand over ruled.
3. The present petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita has been filed by the petitioners with following
prayers :
"1. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
allow the instant petition under section 528 of B.N.S.
2023 filed by the petitioners, in the interest of justice.
2. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash the charge sheet dated 13.05.2025 and FIR
bearing No. 112/2025 registered on dated
18.02.2025 at police station Masturi, District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh filed under section 221, 296, 109(2),
121, 132, 191(2) (3), 191(4), 125, 324 (4) of B.N.S.
and section 135 A of People's Representation Act,
1951 against the petitioners in the interest of justice.
3. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash charges dated 18.09.2025 issued by learned
11th Upper Sessions Judge Bilaspur, District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh in S.T. No. 145/2025 in under section
221, 296, 109(2), 121, 132, 191(2) (3), 191(4), 125,
324 (4) of B.N.S. and section 135 A of People's
Representation Act, 1951 against the petitioners in
the interest of justice.
4. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash entire criminal proceeding of Sessions Case
No. 145/2025 (wrongly mentioned as Criminal case
No. 145/2025) pending before the learned 11th
Upper Sessions Judge Bilaspur, District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh against the petitioners, in the interest of
justice.
5. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly grant any
other reliefs in favour of the petitioners, which the
Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and
circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant /
respondent No.2 has made a complaint to the concerned Police
Station Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh with intend that on
17.02.2025 the accused persons entered in voting Centre No. 160
of village Raliya Govt. Primary School and they have used filthy
language and they have assaulted upon the government servant
and vehicle by stone and bricks by threatening to commit murder,
due to which, vehicle has been damaged. Based upon the such
complaint made by the complainant, the concerned police station
has registered FIR for commission of offence under section 221,
296, 109(2), 121, 132, 191(2) (3), 191(4), 125, 324 (4) of B.N.S.
and section 135 A of People's Representation Act, 1951 against
the petitioners and other accused persons. After completion of
investigation, the concerned police station has submitted the
charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Bilaspur from where the case has been referred to learned 11 th
Upper Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
and case has commenced for trial in Sessions Case No. 145/2025
(wrongly mentioned as Criminal case No. 145/2025) and trial
proceeding is pending before the learned 11 th Upper Sessions
Judge Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Hence this petition
is being preferred with the aforementioned prayers.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the actions of the
respondents are illegal, erroneous, discriminatory, and contrary to
law, and that the prosecution has concocted a false and fabricated
story to falsely implicate the petitioners. It is contended that the
petitioners neither captured any voting box nor snatched any
voting material from the Election Officer, and the allegations to
that effect are baseless; notably, Petitioner No. 6, Yash Kumar
Ratre, son of Ratiram Ratre, is an 80% disabled person and is
physically incapable of committing any such act, and his disability
certificate has been filed as Annexure P-3. The petitioners had
merely gone to cast their votes on 17.02.2025 and returned to
their homes at about 9:30 p.m., and no offence as alleged was
committed by them. They did not assault the Election Officer with
any weapon, and the registration of an offence under Section 109
of the BNS is wholly misconceived and not attracted to the facts of
the case. He also contended that the dispute, if any, arose
between contesting candidates of the Gram Panchayat election,
whereas the petitioners were not contesting parties and have
been falsely implicated under the pretext of booth capturing.
Some of the petitioners are elderly persons who were not present
at the alleged place of occurrence, and no incriminating article
has been seized from any of the petitioners. He also submitted
that a bare perusal of the FIR reveals no specific averments
disclosing their involvement, and even if the allegations are taken
at face value, no offence is made out against them. The charge-
sheet has been filed without sufficient material and in absence of
any cogent evidence, though the petitioners have played no role
in the alleged incident; hence, the impugned FIR as well as the
Sessions Case pending before the learned Trial Court are liable to
be set aside.
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes this petition
and submits that since the charge-sheet has been filed against
the petitioners after due investigation and the trial has already
been commenced and perusal of the materials on record
discloses commission of cognizable offence, as such, no
interference is warranted at this stage.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
State counsel at length. Perused the record, including the
impugned FIR and the charge-sheet filed before the learned Trial
Court.
8. The principal contention of the petitioners is that the allegations
are false, fabricated, and motivated by political rivalry arising out
of Gram Panchayat elections, and that no prima facie offence is
made out against them. It is further contended that certain
petitioners were not present at the place of occurrence, that one
of the petitioners is an 80% disabled person, and that the dispute,
if any, is civil in nature. The State, on the other hand, submits that
the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclose
specific overt acts attributed to the petitioners in connection with
interference in the election process, and that the charge-sheet
has been filed upon completion of investigation based on witness
statements and other material.
9. Upon consideration of the submissions and on a careful perusal of
the FIR, this Court finds that the allegations therein clearly
disclose the commission of cognizable offences. The FIR contains
specific assertions regarding the involvement of the petitioners in
the alleged incident during the election process. At this stage, the
Court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of
evidence or adjudicate upon the veracity or otherwise of the
allegations. The pleas raised by the petitioners, including their
alleged absence from the spot, age, disability, and political rivalry,
are matters of defence which require evidence and can be
examined only during trial.
10. It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal
proceedings 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. In the present case, the material on record prima facie
discloses the ingredients of the offences alleged, and it cannot be
said that the prosecution is wholly groundless or an abuse of the
process of law.
11. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. The
petition is hereby dismissed. The petitioners are at liberty to
raise all permissible grounds before the learned Trial Court at the
appropriate stage in accordance with law.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Chandra
