Rahul Jaiswal @ Ankush Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:40776-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPCR No. 205 of 2025

¶6

1 - Rahul Jaiswal @ Ankush Jaiswal S/o Shri Umashankar Jaiswal Aged About 38 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh (Real Brother Of Deceased Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal)

¶7

2 - Kanhaiya Jaiswal @ Krishna Kumar S/o Shri Vijay Prakash Jaiswal Aged About 44 Years, Owner Of Jaiswal Hotel, Pali, R/o Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh

¶8

(Cousin Of Deceased Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal)

¶9

3 - Anil Kumar Jaiswal S/o Shri Vedprakash Jaiswal Aged About 40 Years Occupation Transport Business R/o Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh (Cousin Of Deceased Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal)

¶10

4 - Dharamraj Maravi @ Dharmu Maravi S/o Rambharose Maravi Aged About 36 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh (Eyewitness Of Murder)

¶11

5 - Sanjay Bhavnani S/o Shri Nanakram Bhavnani Aged About 44 Years Occupation Transport Business R/o Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh

¶12

6 - Rajesh Dongre S/o Late Shri Ramkhilawan Dongre Aged About 42 Years Occupation Helper R/o Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh (Eyewitness)

¶13

--- Petitioner(s)

¶14

versus

¶15

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶16

2 - Director General of Police Chhattisgarh, Police Headquarters Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶17

3 - Inspector General of Police Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur, Office of The Inspector General of Police, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶18

4 - Superintendent Of Police Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh

¶19

2

¶20

5 - Station House Officer Police Station Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh

¶21

6 - Sandhya Singh Thakur W/o Shri Tareshwar Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Naya Bus Stand, Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh

¶22

--- Respondent(s)

¶23

WPCR No. 457 of 2025

¶24

1 - Harsh Jaiswal S/o Shri Ramashankar Jaiswal, Aged About 23 Years R/o. Ward No. 15, Old Bus Stand, Gandhi Chowk, Pali, District- Korba Chhattisgarh 2 - Aditya Jaiswal (Through His Father Shri Sunil Jaiswal), Aged About 17 Years R/o. Ward No. 15, Old Bus Stand, Gandhi Chowk, Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶25

--- Petitioner(s)

¶26

Versus

¶27

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶28

2 - Director General Of Police, Chhattisgarh, Police, Headquarters Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶29

3 - Inspector General Of Police, Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur, Office Of The Inspector General Of Police, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶30

4 - Superintendent Of Police, Korba, District Korba (C.G.)

¶31

5 - Station House Officer, Police Station Pali, District Korba (C.G.)

¶32

6 - Sandhya Singh Thakur, W/o. Shri Tareshwar Singh, Aged About 45 Years R/o Naya Bus Stand, Pali, Distict Korba (C.G.)

¶33

--- Respondent(s)

¶34

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dheeraj K. Wankhede, Advocate. For Respondent /State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate.

¶35

Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶36

Judgment on Board

¶37

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶38

13/08/2025

¶39

1. The petitioners {in WPCr. No. 205/2025}, have prayed for the following relief(s):

¶40

3

¶41

“ 10.1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/ directions quashing the FIR under Crime No. 116/2025 registered at Police Station Pali for offence under Sections 191(2), 331(6), 324(4), 326(g), 296, 351(2) and 190 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 on the complaint of Smt. Sandhya Singh Thakur against the present petitioners.

¶42

10.2) The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to conduct fair enquiry on the murder of Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal.

¶43

10.3) Pass appropriate orders, in favour of the petitioners, so far as the cost of the litigation and other miscellaneous expenses are concerned.

¶44

10.4) Grant any such other relief in favour of petitioners as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of Justice.”

¶45

2. The petitioners {in WPCr. No. 457/2025} have prayed for the following relief(s):

¶46

“ 10.1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/ directions quashing the FIR under Crime No. 116/2025 registered at Police Station Pali for offence under Sections 191(2), 331(6), 324(4), 326(g), 296, 351(2) and 190 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita on the complaint of Smt. Sandhya Singh Thakur against the present petitioners.

¶47

10.2) The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to conduct fair enquiry on the murder of Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal.

¶48

10.3) Pass appropriate orders, in favour of the petitioners, so far as the cost of the litigation and other miscellaneous expenses are concerned.

¶49

10.4) Grant any such other relief in favour of petitioners as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of Justice.”

¶50

4

¶51

3. The facts as projected by the petitioners are that they are residents of Pali, District Korba and the petitioners herein namely Rahul Jaiswal @ Ankush Jaiswal, Kanhaiya Jaiswal @ Krishna Kumar and Anil Kumar Jaiswal (petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3, respectively) are brothers of deceased Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal. Some of the petitioners (WPCr. No. 205/2025) namely, Dharamraj Maravi @ Dharmu Maravi and Rajesh Dongre (petitioners No.4 and 6, respectively) are eyewitnesses to the incident of murder of Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal, whereas Sanjay Bhavnani, petitioner No.5 herein, is the person who is a responsible citizen of Pali who tried to manage the mob not to damage the property or life. Petitioners -Harsh Jaiswal and Aditya Jaiswal (WPCr. No. 457/2025) are the cousin brothers of deceased Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal. Petitioner No.3 Anil Kumar Jaiswal was in hospital along with his cousin i.e. deceased Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal till his death and he was taking care of him, thereafter, he was in the Police Station for registration of FIR. Roshan Singh Thakur, Gaurav Singh, Sushant Singh Thakur, Durgesh Lala Thakur, Saurabh Shrivas and other accused persons who are accused in Crime No. 114/2025 are members of Roshan Singh who runs partnership firm namely M/s. SN Coal and they have their coal business at Pali, District Korba in coalmines.

¶52

4. The deceased Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal was also the resident of Pali and he was 45% disabled and his disability type was locomotor disability. He had initially started the business of transport of coal after new opening of mines at Pali and when he started the business, from the first day of his business, Roshan Singh, who is the prime accused in the allegation of murder of Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal had started giving threat and Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal was subjected to incident and threat calls from Roshan Singh for which he made a written complaint at Police Station, Pali, which was got registered as FIR under Crime No.325/2024 on 22.11.2024 and which was the named FIR

¶53

5

¶54

against Roshan Singh Thakur, Durgesh @ Lala Thakur, Sushant Singh Thakur and Gaurav Thakur. Subsequent to the registration of the said FIR, the accused persons again started giving threat to Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal without considering the fact that already there was an FIR against them and as such, they did not had any fear of police and they continuously tortured Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal and again, Anup @Rohit made written complaint on 19.02.2025 before Police Station Pali about the act of accused persons. On the date of incident i.e. 28.03.2025, Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal was one of the persons who helped the transporter to load trucks from mines and he was doing this work on his own without the help of Roshan Singh and this particular act of Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal was not in favour of Roshan Singh and therefore Roshan Singh started abusing, harassing and asking the Mines Officers to stop Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal to enter in mines and finally, one vehicle bearing registration No CG-04/JC4238 was blacklisted by South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) only at the instance of Roshan Singh, because Roshan Singh is the person who does not want Anup @ Rohit to enter in mines. On the date of incident ie 28.03.2025, without any rhyme and reason, hooligans of Roshan Singh started argument with Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal and finally the heated arguments converted into fight and he was murdered with the help of shots, gupti , knife, etc. and more than 25 injuries on the body of Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal were found due to which he died on the spot and when this news spread in Pali, brothers and relatives approached the Police Station to register FIR against the accused persons because there were more than five eyewitnesses who have seen the incident and the incident was also recorded in the CCTV camera, but the police tried to linger on the matter and finally, the FIR was registered at around 3.30 a.m. of 29.03.2025. After registration of FIR against the accused persons, the police at the instance of the accused persons started

¶55

6

¶56

harassing the family members of deceased Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal and also the eyewitnesses of the incident of murder of Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal to change their version and initially, at the instance of relatives of the accused persons, first FIR bearing Crime No. 0115/2025 was registered on the complaint of Pratibha Singh, who is wife of main accused Roshan Singh, for offence under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 296, 115(3) and 351(2) of the BNS on 29.03.2025 at around 4.15 p.m. against the family members of Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal and eyewitnesses of the murder of Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal. Within a short period of 15 minutes, again, the subsequent FIR has been registered against the present petitioners and other persons at the instance of one Smt. Sandhya Singh Thakur, who is mother of accused Sanskar Thakur, who is also alleged to have murdered Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal. It is relevant to mention here that initially, the police have registered bailable offence i.e. Crime No. 115/2025 and thereafter, to coerce on the petitioners, FIR has been registered for non-bailable offence which is under challenge before this Hon'ble Court as Annexure P-1. In this FIR under Crime No.116/2025, offence under Section 326(g) of the BNS corresponding Section 436 of the IPC was initially added as non-bailable offence/Section so that the petitioners herein who are relatives of Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal and the eyewitnesses to the incident may change their version. Again after 30 minutes, the police have registered subsequent FIR bearing Crime No. 117/2025 against eyewitnesses and family members of Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal, which was registered on 29.03.2025 at 05:10 p.m. for offence under Sections 296, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Again when the general public of Pali started raising voice against the police and the manner the police have registered cases, because it was a big news for Pali as the local boy of Pali was brutally murdered by hooligans and goons of Roshan Singh and they started

¶57

7

¶58

protest, but here, this time also, the police have registered FIR against eyewitnesses and family members of deceased Anup @Rohit Jaiswal. This time, FIR bearing Crime No. 118/2025 i.e. has been registered on 29.03.2025 after 20 minutes of earlier FIR at 5.30 p.m. for offence under Sections 190, 191(2), 296 and 115(2) of the BNS, corresponding section 149, 147, 294, and 323 of the IPC. It is also relevant to mention here that this FIR was also registered by Saurabh Shrivas, one of the relatives of the accused, against the eyewitnesses and family members of deceased Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal.

¶59

5. Mr. Dheeraj K. Wankhede, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the above subsequent FIR itself proves the intention of the police that how, the police have registered four subsequent FIRs against eyewitnesses and family members of the deceased. The petitioners are not denying that protest was not there, there was some protest by the residents of Pali and there was protest against the police, the manner the FIR was registered and there was protest against the goondaraaj of Roshan Singh, but instead of arresting the accused persons, the police have registered offence against the family members of the deceased and eyewitnesses and for that, one of the members of the family of the deceased namely Anil Kumar Jaiswal has made a written complaint to the Inspector General of Police to look into the matter and prayed that an independent enquiry may be conducted. It is also the highhandedness on the part of the police that FIR was registered against the petitioners, but it was not informed to them and when they tried to get the copy of the FIR from the police as to exactly what allegation has been levelled against them, then also it was not informed and finally, they did not had any choice but to make request in writing, and they made written application to the police to get the copy of the FIR, because in the website of the Police Department, it was showing as an sensitive case and therefore

¶60

8

¶61

there was no option to get the copy of the FIR from the website and after receiving the application, the police have without any delay, provided copy of the FIR and thereafter, the petitioners got surprised and shocked that their names were there in the FIR knowing the fact that they are close relatives of deceased Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal and eyewitnesses to the incident which unfortunately happened on 29.03.2025, on that day the brother of petitioners No.1 to 3 herein was brutally murdered by the gang of Roshan Singh. Now, when Roshan Singh was arrested by the police, it was informed to one of the petitioners that Roshan Singh in the past had also beaten an officer of the SECL namely Roopchand Dewangan who had also made written complaint against Roshan Singh alleging that he tried to get all the mines on his command and he wants to run and maintain parallel mines without the support of the Government which means, he wants the entire control of the Government mines and transport coal without any hindrance. Roopchand Dewangan had filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court against his transfer order wherein he had submitted that he was holding the post of Junior Technical Inspector and during his service tenure in Pali, he found that coal transporters are involved in overloading activities and when he objected the illegal activities, coal transporters pressurised and got him transferred him from present place of posting to other place and after looking to the allegations, this Hon'ble Court on 25.10.2024, protected and stayed the transfer order in WPS No.7034/2024. After the above incident of Roopchand Dewangan, the SECL officers have blacklisted Roshan Singh to enter in the mines area, but he never followed the order of the Government and he always used to enter in mines and has been involved in illegal activities of overloading. Brother of petitioners No.1 to 3 herein namely, Anup @Rohit Jaiswal was brutally murdered only because he raised voice against Roshan Singh and this activity of Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal was not

¶62

9

¶63

liked by Roshan Singh, who made conspiracy and brutally murdered Anup @ Rohit. The police is also supporting the version of accused persons and therefore the family members of the deceased made application before the Inspector General of Police to look into the matter and make independent enquiry because there are four FIRs against eyewitnesses and due to that, neither they enter in the jurisdiction of Pali nor they can approach to the police to narrate the real story about the incident which unfortunately happened on 29.03.2025.

¶64

6. It is further submitted that on 06.04.2025, the police have again registered FIR against the Advocates who were representing the case of the petitioners herein before different forums and are trying to help them legally, however, FIR has also been registered against them by the police. With respect to petitioners-Harsh and Aditya Jaiswal, it is submitted that as they are eye witness in Crime No. 114/2025, they are being roped in the present case almost after sixty days of the incident.

¶65

7. Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondent No. 1, relying on the return filed, submits that the instant petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner is having efficacious alternate remedy available in the law to challenge the very cause of action, which has been challenged in the instant petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The registration of FIR No. 116/2025 in Pali Police Station of District Korba is being challenged on various grounds, however, from perusal of the FIR in question being Crime No. 116/2025, dated 29.03.2025, and the materials collected so far are sufficient for registration and investigation of cognizable offences against the petitioners along with other accused and as such, these petitions deserves

¶66

10

¶67

to be dismissed.

¶68

8. Mr. Thakur further submits that after the murder of Rohit Jaiswal was committed, a grave law and order situation occurred in Pali starting with, the accused petitioners Sanjay Bhavnani and Kanhaiya Jaiswal barging into Pali Police Station, District Korba and abusing police personnel on duty using filthy language (including derogatory remarks about their mothers and sisters) and threatened to set the city on fire. The video of the entire incident of 28/03/2025 night, including their disruptive behavior and threats, was captured on the mobile phone of constable 826, Sanjeev Singh. The video recording clearly shows them creating a nuisance and intimidating the onduty officers. Following the aforementioned incident, the petitioners-Rajesh Dongre, Sanjay Bhavnani, Dharmu Marawi, Jetu Prajapati, Suraj Kashyap, Mukesh Jaiswal, Anil Jaiswal, Harsh Jaiswal, and Rahul Jaiswal-acting with common intention, set ablaze a Maruti Swift car belonging to Sushant Thakur (accused in FIR no. 114/2025), leading to the registration of FIR No. 127/2025 under Sections 115(2), 296, 351(3), 191(2), 191(3), 324(4), and 326(f) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.) based on Prabhat Thakur's (father of Sushant Thakur alias Sijju, accused in FIR No. 114/2025) complaint. Subsequently, the petitioners targeted the residence of Roshan Singh (accused in FIR no. 114/2025), damaging CCTV cameras and assaulting his mother, Smt Shobha Singh, with stones, resulting in FIR No. 115/2025 under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 296, 115(2), and 351(2) of B.N.S. On 29.03.2025, Smt Sandhya Singh Thakur reported that on the night of 28.03.2025 between 10:30 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., the petitionersSanjay Bhavnani, Rajesh Dongre, Dharmu Maravi, Kanhaiya Jaiswal, and Rahul Jaiswal, along with associates-forcibly entered her home, issued death threats, hurled abuses, and set fire to household items, including a bed, scooter, television, and power board, compelling the family to

¶69

11

¶70

barricade themselves indoors for safety; this led to FIR No. 116/2025 under Sections 190, 191(2), 331(6), 324(4), 326(g), 296, and 351(2) of B.N.S. Additionally, Laxmi Prajapati filed a complaint on 29/03/2025 alleging that the petitioners-Rajesh Dongre, Sanjay Bhavnani, Dharmu Marawi, Rahul Jaiswal, and Kanhaiya Jaiswal-verbally abused her in obscene language while searching for Chhotu Prajapati (accused in FIR No. 114/2025), prompting FIR No. 117/2025 under Sections 296, 351(3), and 3(5) of B.N.S. Lastly, innocent Santosh Shrivas (father of accused Saurabh Shrivas in FIR No. 114/2025) reported on 29/03/2025 that the petitioners-Anil Jaiswal, Rahul Jaiswal, Harsh Jaiswal, Rajesh Dongre, Dhramu Marawi, Suraj Kashyap, and Jethu Prajapati-dragged and assaulted him and innocent Shubham Shrivas (brother of accused Saurabh Shrivas in FIR no. 114/2025) on 28/03/2025, resulting in FIR No. 118/2025 under Sections 190, 191(2), 296, and 115(2) of B.N.S. It is to be noted that the petitioners dragged Shubham Shrivas out from his house and kept assaulting him till Hemant hospital and dragged him inside the hospital where he was further assaulted. The unrest in Pali spiraled to such a severe level that police personnel from across Korba, including the Superintendent of Police and other gazetted police officers of Korba district, had to station in Pali to quell the violence instigated by the petitioners. Given the rampant lawlessness they unleashed in the region-along with the looming threat of further chaos-a contingent of 20 police officers was stationed in Pali for five days (from 29.03.2025 to 02.04.2025 to restore order and reassure residents. Their presence was critical in enabling the people of Pali to resume their daily lives. It is also significant to note that petitioners hold substantial influence in Pali, which amplified the mob's aggression and the scale of the disturbance in the region. During the investigation, of FIR number 116/2025 at Pali Police Station, a nazri naksa (site inspection report) of the incident spot was

¶71

12

¶72

prepared, and material evidence-including burnt clothes and approximately 100 grams of ash residue-was seized A Nuksani Panchnama was subsequently drawn up in the presence of witnesses Ayush Jaiswal and Manish Kumar Jaiswal The complainant, Smt. Sandhya Singh Thakur, had her statement recorded, in which she reaffirmed the allegations detailed in her written complaint. Additionally, testimonies from other witnessesTareshwar Singh Thakur, Ayushi @Manu Thakur, Ayush Jaiswal, and independent witness Radheshyam Jaiswal were documented, all of which unequivocally corroborated the complainant's account. The investigation in the present matter remains ongoing and has not yet reached its final conclusion. Any premature intervention at this juncture would unduly restrict the statutory authority of the investigating agency to conduct a comprehensive, unbiased and unimpeded inquiry to arrive at a just and lawful determination of the case. Prima facie, it is evident that the petitioners took the law into their own hands and would have escalated to even more serious crimes had the police persons not intervened to restore order. Their actions blatantly mocked the rule of law, legal procedures, and due process. While the murder itself was a tragic incident, the petitioners' subsequent conduct-targeting innocent family members of the accused, hurling threats and abuses, physically assaulting them, and setting their vehicle and house ablaze created a volatile situation where mob lynching could have easily occurred. Such vandalism by the petitioners is equally grave and inexcusable. The materials collected so far are sufficient for registration and investigation of cognizable offences against the petitioners along with other accused. He lastly submits that very soon, the investigation in the present Crime No. 116/2025 would also be concluded and final report would be filed before the competent Court.

¶73

9. Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Dharmesh

¶74

13

¶75

Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 submits that respondent No. 6 is undergoing emotional distress due to the unjust and unwarranted imprisonment of her young son, Sanskar Thakur, who has been falsely implicated in a criminal case solely because of his familial relation to his uncle, Roshan Singh Thakur, the brother of respondent No. 6. This wrongful detention is without any substantive reasonable cause, causing immense evidence or hardship to respondent No. 6 and her family. Roshan Singh Thakur, the brother of respondent No. 6, is a reputed businessman engaged in the coal lifting and transportation and holds a significant position within a political party at the district level. His professional success and political influence have been achieved through dedication, hard work, and lawful conduct, establishing him as a prominent figure in the region. The rapid rise of Roshan Singh Thakur in both business and political spheres has engendered jealousy and enmity among certain individuals who harbor grudges due to his increasing prominence. These adversaries have sought to undermine his reputation and operations through malicious actions, including the false implication of his family members, such as Respondent No. 6's son, in criminal matters. Based on credible information received approximately two months prior to this submission, the deceased, a specially-abled individual without a valid driving license, was manipulated by a person holding a higher position than Roshan Singh Thakur within the same political party. This individual, driven by envy of Roshan Singh Thakur's growing influence, used the deceased as a pawn to create obstacles in the coal transportation business operated by Roshan Singh Thakur, thereby attempting to disrupt his operations and tarnish his reputation. The deceased, Rohit Jaiswal, suffered from locomotor disability, rendering him ineligible for a driving license. He was neither a coal lifter nor a transporter but owned 4-5 vehicles used for coal transportation in

¶76

14

¶77

collaboration with petitioner No. 5, Sanjay Bhawnani. This arrangement indicates a coordinated effort to interfere with Roshan Singh Thakur's business operations. Approximately 25 days prior to the incident, the deceased attempted to introduce his brother's vehicle into the coal mines without requisite permission, which was reported to the officers of South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL). Consequently, the vehicle (bearing registration No. CG-XX-XX-4238) was blacklisted. The deceased thereafter exerted pressure on SECL officers and the Pali Police Station to have the blacklist removed, further evidencing his disruptive intent. From 25.03.2025, significant pressure was exerted on the mines to transport approximately 377 trucks of coal daily. All Delivery Orders (DO) issued for coal transportation between 03.04.2025 and 06.04.2025, were executed by Roshan Singh Thakur's team. The deceased, Rohit Jaiswal, deliberately obstructed these operations, aiming to cause delays that could lead to the reallocation of contracts to other lifters and his transporters, thereby benefiting himself or associates. On 27.03.2025, Roshan Singh Thakur traveled to Raipur in his vehicle (Fortuner, registration No. CG-10-BG-6805) at approximately 1:30 p.m. and departed Raipur on 28.03.2025, at around 8:00 p.m. At approximately 6:30 p.m. on 28.03.2025 while at Magneto Mall in Raipur, he received a call from a worker informing him that the deceased had blocked the mining gate with his truck, disrupting coal transportation. Acting promptly and responsibly, Roshan Singh Thakur contacted the Pali Police Station via his mobile phone, requesting immediate intervention to resolve the situation peacefully and in accordance with the law. During the aforementioned incident, Thakur's workers repeatedly contacted him regarding the ongoing disruption. From Raipur, Thakur lodged a complaint with the Pali Police Station through the mobile phone of his associate, Prabhat Dubey. The police acknowledged the complaint via a text message

¶78

15

¶79

sent at approximately 6:27 p.m., confirming the dispatch of an Emergency Response Vehicle (ERV) for CFS ID 4415955. Following police intervention, the deceased vacated the site, allowing operations to resume However, at approximately 9:30 p.m., the deceased returned with several associates, with the apparent intent to intimidate and confront Thakur's employees. The motives behind the return of a locomotor-disabled individual, who was neither a lifter nor a transporter, at 10:00 p.m. after police intervention, warrant thorough investigation. The deceased initiated a violent altercation with the employees and workers of Roshan Singh Thakur. During the confrontation, the deceased brandished a large knife, resembling a sword, retrieved from his truck, and attempted to attack the employees of Roshan Singh Thakur and also broke the tables and chairs of the spot with his 40-50 friends came there for his help. The aforesaid 40-50 persons had been taken from nearby villages of Pali namely Damiya and Dumarkachhar and all of them were armed with deadly weapons like clubs, iron rods and swords. They also damaged the truck of Sanskar, son of respondent No.6 on the instruction of Sanjay Bhawnani and in this scuffle, a fateful incident was occurred by some unknown person of this unlawful gathering called by Sanjay Bhawnani, the petitioner No.5 with an offensive intention. Sanjay Bhawnani, motivated by longstanding political and business rivalry with Roshan Singh Thakur, seized the opportunity to falsely implicate him and his associates in the incident. Despite Roshan Singh Thakur's absence from the scene, as he was traveling from Raipur and had reached the Bhojpuri Toll Plaza at the time of the incident (corroborated by CCTV footage), Sanjay Bhawnani disseminated false information alleging that Roshan Singh Thakur and his associates committed murder. The unfortunate demise of Anup @ Rohit Jaiswal, was reported as an offense of murder, resulting in the registration of a First Information Report on 29.03.2025 at

¶80

16

¶81

approximately 3:00 a.m., bearing Crime No. 114/2025 at the Pali Police Station. The FIR alleges offenses punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), and 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, naming Roshan Singh Thakur, Gaurav Singh Thakur, Vasu Thakur, Saurabh Shrivas, Sushant Thakur @ Sijju, Sanskar Thakur (the son of Respondent No. 6), Moti Kashyap, Mukesh Shrivas, Sunil Sagar, Prabhat Dubey, Nilesh Singh Raj, Kailash Kaiwart, Anil Maravi @ Chhotu, Mayank Singh Thakur, Suraj Paswan, and Surendra Singh Chauhan as accused. The FIR was lodged by Anil Kumar Jaiswal, a cousin of the deceased, who falsely claimed to be an eyewitness to the incident, despite evidence to the contrary. The aforementioned FIR is based on false, fabricated, and exaggerated allegations. The informant, Anil Kumar Jaiswal, was neither present at the scene of the incident nor in the Village Pali on 28.03.2025, as he was out of station attending to his business commitments, rendering his claim of being an eyewitness wholly untenable. Furthermore, several individuals named in the FIR were not present at the site of the incident: Roshan Singh Thakur and his associate Prabhat Dubey were in Raipur, as evidenced by CCTV footage from the Bhojpuri Toll Plaza; Gaurav Singh Thakur was engaged in his duties as an employee of South Eastern Coalfields Limited at the mines and he was in the chamber of his own as such he was not present at the place of incident. Vivek Kaushik was taking dinner in Chhotu Dhaba at Village - Beltara which is more than 10 KMs far from the place of incident and it is also pertinent to mention here that Vivek Kaushik has no nexus in coal business, he is neither lifter nor transporter and no vehicle was engaged by him in this business and he is also not employee or worker and in any manner involved in the coal mines and Sanskar Thakur, the son of Respondent No. 6, was at home having dinner at the time of the incident. The inclusion of 16 persons

¶82

17

¶83

in the FIR, including innocent individuals like Sanskar Thakur, is a deliberate attempt to harass and defame the family and associates of Roshan Singh Thakur due to business and political rivalries. Petitioner No. 5, Sanjay Bhawnani, driven by deep-seated political and business enmity with Roshan Singh Thakur, not only propagated false narratives implicating Roshan Singh Thakur and his associates in the alleged murder but also orchestrated a series of violent acts against them. On 28th to 29th of March, 2025 just after the aforesaid incident of scuffle, Sanjay Bhawnani instigated his associates, including Rajesh Dongre, Dharmu, Suraj Kashyap, Vishal, Mukesh, Anil Jaiswal, Rahul Jaiswal, Harsh, Chintu Rajpal, Kanhaiya Jaiswal, Jethu Prajapati, Rajesh Rathore, Sunil Jaiswal, Dwarika Maravi, Mohit Bhavnani, Sagar Khan, Udal Sagar, and Razzu Khan, to perpetrate acts of vandalism and violence. These acts included pelting stones at the residences of Roshan Singh Thakur, his relatives, and associates, forcibly entering their homes, damaging properties, setting fire to a room belonging to Respondent No. 6, brutally assaulting Prabhat Singh Thakur, and destroying CCTV cameras installed at the properties of Roshan Singh Thakur and others. These offenses, motivated by personal vendettas, have caused significant harm to the victims. Consequently, multiple FIRs bearing Crime Nos. 115/2025, 116/2025, 117/2025, 118/2025, 120/2025, and 127/2025 were registered at the Pali Police Station against the perpetrators. It is pertinent to mention here that on 29.03.2025 at about 10.00 a.m. morning, the accused persons namely Rajesh Dongre, Dharmu Maravi, Suraj Kashyap along with some other persons went to the mines and declared by shouting that now the business of Roshan Singh Thakur is closed and now they are boss at that place of mines. It would be checked by CCTV footage of coal mines gate and is matter of investigation. Despite the registration of the aforementioned FIRs bearing Crime Nos. 115/2025,

¶84

18

¶85

116/2025, 117/2025, 118/2025, 120/2025 and 127/2025, the investigation conducted by the Pali Police Station has been grossly inadequate and biased. The police have failed to pursue a fair and impartial investigation, ignoring crucial evidence provided by the victims. Pratibha Singh, wife of Roshan Singh Thakur, and respondent No. 6 submitted multiple applications to the police, including one dated 24.03.2025 specifically highlighting the omission of appropriate charges, such as attempt to commit murder, in the FIRs. Further, applications dated 01.04.2025 and 23.04.2025 were submitted to provide additional evidence, but the police have neither acknowledged nor acted upon these submissions. This partiality has compounded the grievances of respondent No. 6 and other victims. Majority of the accused persons named in Crime Nos. 115/2025, 116/2025, 117/2025, 118/2025, 120/2025 and 127/2025, as well as the petitioners in the instant writ petition bearing WPCR No. 205/2025, namely Rahul Jaiswal, Kanhaiya Jaiswal, Anil Kumar Jaiswal, Rajesh Dongre, along with their associates Rajesh Rathore and Dwarika Maravi, are habitual offenders with a documented history of criminal activities. Their involvement in the violent incidents on 29.03.2025, including vandalism, assault, and arson, is consistent with their prior criminal conduct. Both the petitions deserve to be dismissed.

¶86

10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

¶87

11. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is wellsettled 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

¶88

19

¶89

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.

¶90

12. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others {2021 SCC OnLine SC 315}, the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.

¶91

13. In these two petitions, challenge is made to the FIR bearing Crime No. 0116/2025 registered by Police of Police Station, Pali, District Korba, at the instance of respondent No. 6 against the petitioners. From perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires that there are number of FIRs against each other, viz. (i) Crime No. 325/2024, lodged by Anup Jaiswal @ Rohit Jaiswal on 22.11.2024 at 17:15 hours, (ii) Crime No. 326/2024, lodged by Durgesh Singh @ Lala Thakur (iii) Crime No. 114/2025, lodged by Anil Kumar Jaiswal on 29.03.2025, at 3:00 hours, (iv) Crime No. 115/2025 lodged by Smt. Pratibha Singh on 29.03.2025, at 16:15 hours, (v) Crime No. 116/2025, lodged by Smt. Sandhya Singh Thakur on 29.03.2025, at 16:40 hours (vi) Crime No. 117/2025, lodged by Laxmi Prajapati on 29.03.2025, at 17:30 hours, (vii) Crime No. 118/2025 on 29.03.2025 at 17:30 hours, (viii) Crime No. 120/2025, lodged by Laxmi Prajapati on 31.03.2025 at 14:20 hours and (ix) Crime No. 127/2025, lodged by Prabhat Singh Thakur, on 06.04.2025 at 17:10 hours.

¶92

14. Admittedly, there are no FIRs against the complainant-Sandhya Singh Thakur in Crime No. 116/2025, however, there are FIRs against their

¶93

20

¶94

relatives.

¶95

15. In the present two petitions, challenge is made to Crime No. 116/2025 which also arise from the dispute over coal transportation, which escalated into a violent altercation between two groups, resulting in the tragic death of Rohit Jaiswal. There are four other FIRs lodged against the petitioners group which basically revolves around the main incident of tragic death of Rohit Jaiswal, however, the subsequent FIRs were lodged by different persons of the rival group with respect to different offences which were alleged to be committed by the petitioners at a short intervals. According to the learned State counsel, investigation with respect of other four FIRs have been completed and they being bailable offences, the petitioners were released on personal bonds. However, the present offence bearing Crime No. 116/2025, it includes offences which are non bailable and as such, prayer for quashing of the FIR has been made.

¶96

16. From perusal of the materials available on record, prima facie, it cannot be held that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners and as such, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India and quash the FIR. As per the learned counsel for the petitioners, there are total five FIRs against them in which investigation is completed in respect of four FIRs except the present one. The offences registered against the petitioners in other four FIRs were bailable offences and as such, they have been released on furnishing bail bonds. There are versions and counter versions of the parties which cannot be adjudicated at this stage.

¶97

17. Since the investigation is pending consideration, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondent No. 1/State to conclude the investigation in respect of Crime No. 116/2025 registered at Police Station, Pali, on 29.03.2025 and

¶98

21

¶99

file a police report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. { 193(2) of the BNSS } within a period of three weeks from today and till that period, the interim relief granted by this Court on 17.04.2025 {in WPCr. No. 205/2025} shall continue to operate.

¶100

18. So far as WPCr. No. 457/2025 is concerned, since the petitioners therein namely Harsh Jaiswal and Aditya Jaiswal are also the accused in Crime No. 116/2025, they shall also not be arrested till filing of the police report as above, and the interim protection granted by this Court on 17.04.2025 in WPCr. No. 205/2025, shall continue to be operate in their favour also.

¶101

19. With the aforesaid observation and direction, these petitions stand disposed of.

¶102

Sd/Sd/(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶103

Amit

¶104

AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.08.18 11:05:22 +0530

Rahul Jaiswal @ Ankush Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Jaiswal @ Ankush Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radhelal Manhare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kamal Narayan Jaiswal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramlal and others Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Dharamjeet @ Visvidhyalay Gupta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Sonant Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Babbu @ Uttam Makhija @ Bablu