[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Dileshwar Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:11389-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 668 of 2026
1 - Dileshwar Yadav S/o Late Chiharuram Yadav, Aged About 55 Years,
R/o Gudiyajor Kohilabinda, P/S Kurdeg, District Simdega, Jharkhand.
...Applicant/Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Director General of Police, Raipur,
Distt. Raipur C.G.
2 - Superintendent of Police Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G.
3 - Station House Officer, Police Station Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh
C.G.
... Respondents
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate.
For State : Mr. N.K. Jaiswal, Deputy Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
10-03-2026
1. Heard Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant
/petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.K. Jaiswal, learned Deputy Govt.
Advocate, appearing for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking the following relief(s):-
"A. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash
the criminal proceeding of session trial no. 52/2025
registered against the Applicant at the Police Station
Dharamjaigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) for an offence U/S
379, 365, 395, 397, 120(B), 412, 414, 307, 347, 356, 357,
IPC AND 25, 27 OF ARMS ACT as well as quashment of
the supplementary charge-sheet as well of the said offence
as well as the Cognizance Taken On Dated 10.11.2025 In
Session Case No. 52/2025 By Additional Session Judge
Gharghoda District Raigarh C.G. for the Offences u/s 379,
365, 395, 397, 120(B), 412, 414, 307, 347, 356, 357, IPC
AND 25, 27 OF ARMS ACT.
B. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly take appropriate
against the Respondent No.3 for falsely implicate the
Applicant in the alleged offence.
C. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any
other relief as the Hon'ble Court may be deemed fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. The facts of the case in brief are that, the complainant Abhishek
Upadhyay made a written complaint to Police Station
Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh that he is working as Assistant
Officer at M/s Rupala Dham Steel Pvt. Ltd. and under his
supervision 25 tons and 50 kg of 8MM, 10MM, and 12MM Maruti
TMT steel bars valued Rs.14,03,679 was loaded into Truck No.
CG15AC1490 on June 22, 2024, for delivery to Shivariya Trading
& Steels, Ramanujnagar, Surajpur and the truck departed from the
company premises at about 7:00 PM. Later, it was reported that
the driver had last communicated with the truck owner around
11:30 PM while at Jai Maa Ambe Dhaba in Dharamjaigarh, after
which his phone was switched off. The consignment did not reach
the buyer and he is having suspicion that the goods were stolen
near Dharamjaigarh by unknown persons. On the basis of the
report made by the complainant the police registered the offence
under Section 379 of the IPC and started investigation. During the
investigation, the statement of driver and helper of the truck and
other witnesses were recorded and seizure of the property were
made from the accused persons and charge sheet was initially
filed on 31.08.2024 against three accused person showing three
accused persons absconding and supplementary charge sheet
has been filed on 12.09.2025 against the present
applicant/petitioner and two other accused persons for the offence
under Section 379, 365, 395, 397, 120(B), 412, 414, 307, 347,
356, 357 of IPC and Section 25, 27 of Arms Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant submits that the son of
the applicant who is also an accused in the present case has
surrendered and the petitioner/applicant has moved an application
before the competent authority that no third degree method would
be taken against his son and the Magistrate had made some
observation against police, on account of which the
petitioner/applicant has also been arrayed as accused in the
present case. He further submits that there appears to be no
cogent and legal evidence against the applicant/petitioner and
only as he made the application, the applicant has also been
made accused in the case. As per the memorandum of son of
applicant, out of Rs.1,00,000/-, he has given Rs.2,000/- to his
father. There are six accused in the case including the son of the
applicant and the charge sheet has been filed against the
applicant also wherein there is no sufficient material to connect
him with the alleged offence. Therefore, the proceeding so far as
against the applicant/petitioner is concerned be quashed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions
made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the
allegations levelled in the case disclose the commission of
cognizable offences, which require appreciation of evidence and
determination of disputed questions of fact, and the same cannot
be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is
further submitted that the defence raised by the
applicant/petitioner is matter of evidence which may be examined
by the trial Court during trial and do not, by themselves, constitute
a ground for quashment of the criminal proceedings at the
threshold. Therefore, the petition filed by the applicant/petitioner is
liable to be dismissed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents annexed with the petition.
7. In M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of
Maharashtra & others, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 23 held as under :-
"23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, our final conclusions on the principal/core
issue, whether the High Court would be justified in
passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or
"no coercive steps to be adopted", during the
pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and in what circumstances and whether the High
Court would be justified in passing the order of not to
arrest the accused or "no coercive steps to be
adopted" during the investigation or till the final
report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C.,
while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not
quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final
conclusions are as under:
i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the
relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure
contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate
into a cognizable offence;
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the
cognizable offences;
iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or
offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information
report that the Court will not permit an investigation to
go on;
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly with circumspection, as it has been
observed, in the 'rarest of rare cases (not to be
confused with the formation in the context of death
penalty).
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of
which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the
initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
exception rather than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the
jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the
State operate in two specific spheres of activities and
one ought not to tread over the other sphere;
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference
would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the
judicial process should not interfere at the stage of
investigation of offences;"
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. The allegation against the present applicant is that, the son of the
applicant is one of the accused in the case who looted steel bars
along with other accused persons. On the memorandum
statement of son of the applicant it has comes that he gave
Rs.2000/- to the present applicant. However, in the memorandum
statement of the present applicant he has stated that his son has
taken a pick-up vehicle and sold it to somewhere and his son has
informed that the pick-up vehicle met with an accident and he sold
it, but he did not disclose where he has sold the pick-up vehicle
and the applicant has denied that his son has given Rs.2000/- to
him. There is allegation of theft, kidnapping, robbery, attempt to
commit murder, receiving of stolen property and conspiracy.
Considering cumulative facts and circumstances of the case and
the manner in which the alleged offence is said to have been
committed by the accused persons, we find sufficient material to
proceed against the present applicant/petitioner. At this stage no
specific part of involvement of the petitioner/applicant can be
considered particularly when there are the other co-accused
persons in the case. Further, the defence taken by the applicant
are matter of evidence which may be examined by the trial Court
during trial.
10. In light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
judgment cited above and after considering the submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties, further considering the overall
case which has been registered against the co-accused persons
and involvement of the son of the petitioner/applicant, we are not
inclined to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the present petition
is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Aadil
