Satyam Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 694 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Satyam Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 March, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                         1




                                                                     2026:CGHC:12841-DB
                                                                                      NAFR
                                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                                              CRMP No. 782 of 2026


                      Satyam Singh S/o Shri Namo Narayan Singh Aged About 24 Years R/o
                      Rajendra Prasad Ward Darripara Ambikapur District -Surguja,(C.G.)
MANPREET
KAUR                                                                          ... Petitioner(s)
Digitally signed by


                                                      versus
MANPREET KAUR
Date: 2026.03.19
10:43:48 +0530




                      1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station In-Charge Police Station -
                      Kotwali, Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh
                      2 - M Onu Sahu S/olate Naresh Sahu R/o Gahira Guru Ashram, Ring
                      Road Ambikapur, Thana Manipur, Tehsil -Ambikapur District -Sarguja,
                      (C.G.)
                                                                         ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailendra Bajpai, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 18.03.2026

1. Heard Mr. Shailendra Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer,

appearing for respondents No.1 / State.

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

following prayers:

"(i) QUASH the F.I.R as well as entire charge sheet filed by the police of Police Station- Kotwali Ambikapur, District Surguja, (C.G.) before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh in Crime No. 202/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 296, 351 (3), 191 (2), 191 (3), 190, 109, 324(4), 112 of B.N.S.

(ii) QUASH the entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No. 11619/2025, "State of Chhattisgarh V/s.

Mukesh Yadav and others" pending before the Court of Chief Surguja, Judicial Magistrate Ambikapur, District Chhattisgarh in the interest of justice.

(iii) PASS such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

3. As per the prosecution case, on 22.03.2025 the complainant

Monu Sahu lodged a written report at Police Station Kotwali,

Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.), alleging that after completing

his workout at a gym, he was sitting in his Scorpio car parked

outside the gym premises when co-accused Sushant Singh @

Anshu forcibly entered the vehicle and assaulted him with a knife

with an alleged intention to kill him, causing injuries on his hand. It

is further alleged that when the complainant tried to escape and ran

towards the gym, the present petitioner along with other co-

accused persons assaulted him with iron rods and other weapons,

chased him and extended threats to his life. Apprehending danger,

the complainant hid himself inside the bathroom of the gym, while

the accused persons allegedly abused him in filthy language and

caused damage to his vehicle by breaking the window glasses. On

the basis of the said complaint, the police registered an FIR against

the petitioner and other accused persons for various offences

under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During investigation,

additional offences were incorporated and statements of witnesses

were recorded. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed

charge-sheet on 30.12.2025 before the Court of the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), showing

some of the accused persons, including the petitioner, as

absconding and separating certain accused persons from the

proceedings in accordance with law. Thereafter, the case was

registered as Criminal Case No. 11619/2025 titled "State of

Chhattisgarh vs. Mukesh Yadav and Others" and is presently

pending consideration before the competent trial Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the continuation of

criminal proceedings against the petitioner is wholly unjustified and

amounts to abuse of the process of law, as neither the FIR nor the

charge-sheet discloses the essential ingredients of the offences

alleged under Sections 296, 351(3), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109,

324(4) and 112 of the BNS, 2023. It is contended that the

allegations levelled in the FIR are vague, omnibus and inherently

improbable, without attributing any specific overt act or distinct role

to the present petitioner, and the material collected during

investigation also fails to establish any common intention or

unlawful object so as to attract the rigours of the aforesaid

provisions. Learned counsel further submits that the injury

sustained by the complainant is simple in nature and not on any

vital part of the body, and the medical report does not support the

prosecution version regarding use of any sharp-edged or deadly

weapon, thereby creating serious contradictions between the ocular

and medical evidence. It is also urged that several witnesses in

their statements have not supported the allegation of use of knife or

other lethal weapons, and even persons initially named in the FIR

were subsequently separated from the case by the investigating

agency, rendering the prosecution story doubtful. It is further

submitted that the complainant himself had moved an application

before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate seeking compounding

of the matter on the basis of compromise, which indicates that the

dispute was of a personal nature arising out of a minor scuffle

rather than a premeditated criminal act. Learned counsel lastly

submits that the petitioner is a young college student and his

implication in such a serious case without cogent material would

gravely prejudice his future prospects. In these circumstances, the

impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed.

5. Learned State counsel, while opposing the petition, submits that a

plain reading of the written complaint and the FIR lodged by the

complainant clearly discloses specific and serious allegations

against the petitioner and other co-accused persons regarding a

pre-planned and concerted attack carried out with deadly weapons

with an intention to cause fatal injuries. It is contended that the

complainant has categorically narrated that while he was sitting in

his vehicle after finishing his work at the gym, one of the co-

accused forcibly entered the vehicle and inflicted a knife blow, and

when he attempted to flee towards the gym premises, the present

petitioner along with other accused persons assaulted him with iron

rods, fighter and other weapons and continued to chase and

threaten him with dire consequences. Learned State counsel

further submits that the allegations also disclose acts of criminal

intimidation, use of abusive language and deliberate damage to the

complainant's vehicle, thereby attracting the provisions invoked in

the FIR. It is argued that the statements of eyewitnesses recorded

during investigation corroborate the prosecution version regarding

the unlawful assembly and common intention of the accused

persons to cause grievous harm, and the matter involves disputed

questions of fact which can only be adjudicated upon appreciation

of oral and documentary evidence during trial. The State therefore

submits that at this preliminary stage, when the material on record

discloses prima facie commission of offences, the extraordinary

jurisdiction of this Court ought not to be exercised to scuttle a

legitimate prosecution, and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

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

documents appended with petition.

7. Upon careful perusal of the FIR and the material collected during

the course of investigation, this Court is of the considered view that

the allegations made against the petitioner disclose prima facie

commission of cognizable offences requiring adjudication on the

basis of evidence before the competent trial Court. The contentions

raised on behalf of the petitioner pertain to disputed questions of

fact, including the nature of his participation in the alleged incident,

the veracity of the prosecution version, medical inconsistencies and

the effect of the alleged compromise, which cannot be conclusively

examined in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. At

this stage, the Court is only required to ascertain whether the

uncontroverted allegations and the material placed on record make

out a case to proceed, and not to conduct a detailed appreciation of

evidence or determine the probable defence of the accused.

Considering the seriousness of the accusations and the existence

of eyewitness accounts, this Court does not find any ground to

interfere with the impugned proceedings.

8. Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of merits is liable to

be and is hereby dismissed.

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

Manpreet