Md. Junaid Chauhan @ Md. Junaidraza ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 313 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Md. Junaid Chauhan @ Md. Junaidraza ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 March, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                           1




         Digitally
                                                                       2026:CGHC:11554-DB
         signed by
         ANURADHA                                                                    NAFR
ANURADHA TIWARI
TIWARI   Date:

                                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
         2026.03.12
         10:39:07
         +0530




                                               CRMP No. 676 of 2026
                      Md. Junaid Chauhan @ Md. Junaidraza Chouhan S/o Yusuf Chauhan
                      Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. Raza Colony Deen Dayal Upadhyay
                      Nagar, Nayapara, Rajim, Dist- Gariyabandh, ( C.G. ).
                                                                                  ... Petitioner
                                                        versus
                      1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station
                      Rajim, District- Gariyaband, ( C.G. ).
                      2 - Manrakhan Dewangan S/o Narayan Dewangan, Aged About 43
                      Years R/o- Ward No. 1, Gandhi Nagar, Rajim, District- Gariyaband
                      ( C.G. ).
                                                                             ... Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy Government No.1/State Advocate

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

11.03.2026

1 Heard Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner as

well as Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate,

appearing for the State/respondent No.1.

2 The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS')

with the following relief(s):-

"I. To kindly quash the FIR No. 78/2023, dated 28/02/2023, registered at Police Station Rajim, Gariyanand, (C.G.)..[ANNEXURE A/1]

II. To kindly quash the impugned final report bearing no. 241/2023 dated 09/09/2023, in crime no. 78/2023 filed against the Petitioner under section 279, 304A of I.P.C. and Sections 3/181, 5/180, 56/192, 66/192 and 50/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. [ANNEXURE A/3]

III. To kindly quash the impugned order dated 11/12/2023 whereby the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajim, Dist- Gariyaband has taken cognizance of the impugned chargesheet and registered the impugned criminal proceedings as criminal case no. 710/2023 against the Petitioner. [ANNEXURE A/4]

IV. To pass such other orders as it may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioners against the respondent."

3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

been falsely implicated in the present case and the entire

prosecution is based upon conjectures and surmises without there

being any cogent material connecting the petitioner with the

alleged offences. It is contended that the truck bearing registration

No. CG04-CW-1184 was admittedly registered in the name of

Akbar Solanki and, as per the prosecution case itself, the said

vehicle had already been sold to one Mohd. Athar Rizvi for the

purpose of scrapping much prior to the alleged incident. The

petitioner was neither the registered owner of the vehicle nor has

any lawful transfer been shown in his favour in the records of the

Transport Department. In such circumstances, fastening criminal

liability upon the petitioner is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable in

law. He further submits that the prosecution story suffers from

serious contradictions and inherent improbabilities. The

statements of the driver Ravikumar Yadav and other witnesses,

which form the foundation of the prosecution case, are materially

inconsistent and self-contradictory. It is also pointed out that the

alleged Iqarnama and the stamp papers relied upon during the

investigation do not contain the particulars of the alleged seller

and purchaser and even the Notary concerned has admitted that

the details were not entered in his register due to haste. Such

doubtful and unverified documents cannot legally form the basis

of criminal prosecution against the petitioner.

4 It is argued that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged

against the petitioner, including those under Sections 279, 304-A

and 420 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the provisions of the

Motor Vehicles Act, are completely absent. There is no material

on record to establish any act of rash or negligent driving on the

part of the petitioner, nor is there any evidence to demonstrate the

existence of dishonest intention or mens rea necessary for

constituting the offence of cheating. The petitioner had duly

responded to the notices issued under Section 91 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure and had clearly stated that he had no

knowledge of the allegations made against him. He lastly submits

that even if the entire material collected during investigation is

taken at its face value, no offence is made out against the

petitioner and the continuation of the criminal proceedings would

amount to abuse of the process of the Court. It is thus prayed that

the impugned FIR, charge-sheets and the consequential criminal

proceedings initiated against the petitioner deserve to be

quashed.

5 On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the

impugned prosecution has been initiated after a thorough

investigation conducted by the police authorities. Learned State

counsel submits that on the basis of the report lodged by the

complainant Manrakhan Dewangan on 28.02.2023, Crime No.

78/2023 was registered at Police Station Rajim under Sections

279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code in relation to a fatal road

accident in which two persons lost their lives. During the course of

investigation, the spot was inspected, statements of the

complainant and other witnesses were recorded and the

motorcycle of the deceased as well as the offending truck bearing

registration No. CG04-CW-1184 were seized from the driver

Ravikumar Yadav. It is further submitted that during investigation,

upon seeking information from the Regional Transport Office and

issuing notice to the registered owner Akbar Solanki, it came to

light that the vehicle had allegedly been sold earlier and that the

number plate was being misused. A physical verification of the

seized truck was thereafter conducted by a vehicle surveyor, who

reported that the chassis number of the vehicle had been

tampered with. On the basis of the memorandum statements of

the driver Ravikumar Yadav and the welding shop owner

Mohammad Yakub Solanki, it was revealed that the vehicle was

being used by the present petitioner for transportation purposes.

In view of such material, a separate Crime No. 246/2023 under

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was also registered against

the petitioner for tampering with the chassis number and using the

vehicle dishonestly.

6 Learned State counsel also submits that during the course of

investigation it was also found that the driver was permitted to

drive the vehicle without possessing a valid driving licence and

the vehicle itself did not have valid insurance and fitness

certificates, on account of which offences under Sections 3/181,

5/180, 56/192, 66/192 and 50/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act were

also added. It is submitted that after completion of investigation

and upon finding sufficient material against the accused persons,

charge-sheet No. 241/2023 dated 09.09.2023 has been filed

before the competent Court and cognizance has already been

taken. Therefore, at this stage, when the investigation has

culminated in the filing of the charge-sheet and prima facie

material exists on record, the criminal proceedings cannot be

quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

7 We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and

perused the material placed on record.

8 From a perusal of the charge-sheet and the documents appended

therewith, it transpires that the criminal proceedings in question

have arisen out of Crime No. 78/2023 registered at Police Station

Rajim for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A

of the Indian Penal Code in relation to a road accident which

occurred on 28.02.2023, resulting in the death of two persons.

The record further indicates that during the course of investigation

the motorcycle of the deceased as well as the offending truck

bearing registration No. CG04-CW-1184 were seized from the

driver Ravikumar Yadav and the statements of the complainant

and other witnesses were recorded. Upon seeking information

from the Regional Transport Office and issuing notice to the

registered owner of the vehicle, it was revealed that the vehicle

had allegedly been sold earlier and that the number plate of the

said vehicle was being misused. A physical verification of the

seized truck was thereafter conducted by a vehicle surveyor, who

reported that the chassis number of the vehicle had been

tampered with.

9 The investigation further discloses that the memorandum

statements of the driver Ravikumar Yadav and the welding shop

owner Mohammad Yakub Solanki were recorded, wherein it was

stated that the vehicle was being used by the present petitioner.

On the basis of such material, a separate Crime No. 246/2023

under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was also registered

against the petitioner for allegedly tampering with the chassis

number of the vehicle and using the same for transportation

purposes. During investigation, it was also found that the driver

had been permitted to operate the vehicle without a valid driving

licence and that the vehicle did not possess valid insurance and

fitness certificates, on account of which offences under Sections

3/181, 5/180, 56/192, 66/192 and 50/177 of the Motor Vehicles

Act were also added. After completion of investigation and upon

finding prima facie material against the accused persons, the

investigating agency has filed charge-sheet No. 241/2023 dated

09.09.2023 before the competent Court and the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class has already taken cognizance of the

offences.

10 At this stage, it is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure /

corresponding provisions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the Court does not ordinarily embark

upon an enquiry as to the reliability or otherwise of the allegations

made in the charge-sheet, nor can it appreciate the evidence in

detail to determine the veracity of the prosecution case. If the

material collected during investigation discloses the commission

of a cognizable offence and a prima facie case is made out, the

criminal proceedings ought not to be interdicted at the threshold.

The defence sought to be raised by the petitioner, including the

plea regarding ownership of the vehicle, alleged inconsistencies in

witness statements, and other factual aspects, are matters which

require appreciation of evidence and can appropriately be

considered by the trial Court during the course of trial.

11 In the considered opinion of this Court, the material collected

during investigation and reflected in the charge-sheet cannot be

said to be so absurd or inherently improbable so as to warrant

exercise of the inherent powers of this Court for quashing the

criminal proceedings. The issues raised by the petitioner involve

disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in

proceedings of the present nature. The petitioner would be at

liberty to raise all permissible defences before the trial Court in

accordance with law.

12 Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is

dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observation made

herein is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and

shall not prejudice the case of either party during the course of

trial before the competent Court.

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