Pradeep Singh Parihar Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

Pradeep Singh Parihar Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 352 of 2022, registered at Police Station Kotwali Jagdalpur for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, should be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 / Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

Court's answer

The jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases, and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with investigations of cognizable offences; however, where the allegations in the FIR or complaint, even taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence, the FIR or charge-sheet may be quashed under Article 226, Section 528 BNSS or Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's submissions (presence in school and at SBI Janjgir on 17.10.2022, FASTag e-statement, notarized sale of the vehicle, misuse of its registration number) relate to questions of fact and appreciation of evidence, and therefore cannot be examined by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

Key takeaways

The argument that neither the petitioner nor his car was involved in the accident and that the car number mentioned in the FIR is false cannot be appreciated at this stage, as it is a matter for investigation by the investigating officer, who is obliged to submit the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC (now Section 193(3) BNSS) before the competent Court.ratio¶54
On the facts stated in the FIR, a cognizable offence is made out; the petition does not fall within any category in which jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised for quashing the impugned FIR, and no grounds exist for interference or quashing.ratio¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Procedure — Quashing of FIR — S.482 Cr.P.C. / S.528 BNSS / Art. 226 — FIR Crime No. 352 of 2022, P.S. Kotwali Jagdalpur, under Ss.279 & 304-A IPC arising out of a fatal road accident of 17.10.2022 at Jagdalpur involving a car bearing registration No. CG-11AH-8064 allegedly owned by the petitioner — Petitioner's pleas of alibi (school attendance register, FASTag e-statement, presence at SBI Janjgir) and of misuse of his vehicle's registration number after a notarized sale deed to respondent No. 6 raise questions of fact and appreciation of evidence, which cannot be examined at the quashing stage — Allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, disclose a cognizable offence; whether the petitioner or his car was involved is for the investigating officer, bound to submit the police report under S.173(2) CrPC (now S.193(3) BNSS) — Applying State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and other Apex Court precedents, the Court declined to quash the FIR, dismissed the CRMP and vacated the interim relief granted on 22.03.2023.

1

2025:CGHC:43187-DB

NAFR

Digitally signed by BABLU BABLU RAJENDRA RAJENDRA BHANARKAR BHANARKAR Date: 2025.08.28 16:59:48 +0530

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRMP No. 629 of 2023

Pradeep Singh Parihar S/o Raj Kumar Parihar Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 21, Indira Nagar, Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner

versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Superintendent of Police, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

3. Superintendent of Police, Janjgir - Champa, District : JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh.

4. Station House Officer, Police Station, Kotwali Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

5. Shrimati Harmani Vaishnav W/o Late Anantram Vaishnav Aged About 50 Years R/o - Sukarpal, Kondagaon, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.

2

6. Vinay Kumar Bhoi S/o Late Shri Devikant Bhoi Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 08, Housing Board Colony, Paraskol Road, Machewa, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

...Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

26.08.2025

1. Heard Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4/State and Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 5.

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

“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition and quash the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 352 of 2022, dated 18.10.2022 registered at Police Station Kotwali Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) for the offence under Section 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is serving as Headmaster in Government Primary Middle School, Akaltari,

3

District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). The alleged accident occurred on 17.10.2022 at Jagdalpur. On the said date, the petitioner was present in the school, as is evident from the attendance register. It is further submitted that on 18.10.2022, the petitioner executed a notarized sale deed transferring the vehicle in question to respondent No. 6, Shri Vinay Kumar Bhoi. Upon learning that the registration number of his vehicle was being misused by another person, the petitioner lodged a complaint at Police Station City Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, copy of which is annexed as Annexure P/7.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated merely on the basis of the registration number of his vehicle, without there being any seizure from his possession or evidence of his presence at the crime scene. It is contended that there is a strong possibility that the registration number or vehicle earlier owned by the petitioner has been misused in an unauthorized manner by some other person. He submits that the FasTag e-statement, coupled with the petitioner’s proven presence at Government Primary School, Janjgir and at SBI Janjgir on 17.10.2022, clearly establishes his alibi. Thus, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies, shifting the burden upon the respondent authorities to establish that the petitioner or his car was actually present at the crime scene before initiating any coercive action.

5. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of offences

4

under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, where it is necessary to prove that the alleged negligent act was committed by the petitioner himself. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 5 oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submit that the FIR discloses prima facie offence against the present petitioner and and submit that in the FIR vehicle number has been mentioned which belongs to the petitioner. As such, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned FIR.

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 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) or under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

9. In the well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605

5

State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal , the Apex Court held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Guidelines are as follows:

“(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety to do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 156(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can every reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

6

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

10. In case of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill , reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059 , Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi , reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors , reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615 , the Apex Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed.

11. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others , reported in (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315 , the Apex Court

7

has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit.

12. Keeping in view the aforesaid law and considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the submissions raised by learned counsel for petitioner relate to the questions of fact and thus, cannot be examined by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC. The appreciation of evidence or the reliability of the allegations cannot be examined at this stage.

13. Upon perusal of the impugned FIR, it appears that the complainant, a housewife has reported that her elder son, Jitendra Kumar Vaishnav, on 17.10.2022, had gone to Jagdalpur on his personal work on their TVS Jupiter bearing registration No. CG18P-9148. After returning from Jagdalpur, he was proceeding towards Tokapal to meet his wife and children at Sukurpal in the evening. At about 19:47 hours,

8

when he reached near Asna Chowk, a car bearing registration No. CG-11AH-8064, coming from Jagdalpur towards Raipur, being driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, hit her son Jitendra Kumar, causing an accident. Due to the impact, he fell on the road and sustained a head injury. He was thereafter taken by a 112 emergency vehicle to Dimrapal Medical College Hospital for treatment, where the doctors, after examination, declared him dead. The complainant, upon receiving the information of her son’s death, lodged the present report on 18.10.2022, seeking appropriate action against the driver of the said vehicle. Further, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that neither he nor his car was involved in the alleged accident and that car number of the petitioner mentioned in the FIR is a false one, cannot be appreciated by this Court at this stage as the same has to be investigated by the investigating officer, who is under an obligation to submit the police report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC (Now Section 193(3) of the BNSS) before the competent Court.

14. In view of the aforesaid facts stated in the FIR, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Consequently, the present petition does not fall within any category where this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the impugned FIR. Hence, no grounds exist for interference or for quashing of the FIR.

15. Accordingly, the present CRMP is dismissed . Interim relief granted on 22.03.2023 stands vacated.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice