Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Paltan Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Chhattisgarh HC
2026
Paltan Verma Vs State of ChhattisgarhPaltan Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Dismissed¶26

Paltan Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Apr 2026CRMP/1027/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh HC, single judge (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.), 13/04/2026; CRMP 1027/2026; Section 528 BNSS 2023 inherent powers (cf. Section 482 CrPC); prayer to decide objection dated 11.03.2026 (Annexure-P/2) and ensure fair/proper investigation; FIR Crime No. 107/2026, PS Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai; death of Tularam Patel after assault on 08.03.2026; petitioner claimed bystander presence and false implication; Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat (2010) 12 SCC 254 cited by petitioner's counsel (fair investigation, Article 21); State argued no obligation to dispose of such applications during investigation; result: petition dismissed at motion stage, inherent power not exercised.

What did the court decide?

The Court, looking to the facts and circumstances, was not inclined to exercise its inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS (which corresponds to Section 482 CrPC and is available for clear abuse of process or to prevent injustice) in this case.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS 2023, direct the respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioner's objection dated 11.03.2026 (Annexure-P/2) and to conduct a fair and proper investigation in the matter of FIR Crime No. 107/2026.

Court's answer

The Court, looking to the facts and circumstances, was not inclined to exercise its inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS (which corresponds to Section 482 CrPC and is available for clear abuse of process or to prevent injustice) in this case.

Ratio / Principle

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed at motion stage itself.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRMP No. 1027 of 2026 — High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.), order dated 13/04/2026. Petition by an accused (Paltan Verma) named in FIR Crime No. 107/2026, Police Station Khairagarh, registered after the death of Tularam Patel in an assault on 08.03.2026, filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) praying for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and decide the objection application dated 11.03.2026 (Annexure-P/2) asserting false implication, and to conduct a fair and proper investigation; counsel relied on Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254 (fair investigation as part of Article 21). Holding: looking to the facts and circumstances, the Court was not inclined to use its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS, and the petition was dismissed at motion stage itself. No relief granted; no monetary quantum involved.

A

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1027 of 2026

1 - Paltan Verma S/o Bharat Verma Aged About 65 Years R/o Village- Gadadih, PS And Tehsil Khairagarh, DistrictKhairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Superintendent Of Police, Khairagarh, DistrictKhairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh.

2 - The Station House Officer Police Station Khairagarh, DistrictKhairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Adv. For State : Mr. Anish Tiwari, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Order on Board

13/ 04/ 2026

This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking for the issuance of an appropriate direction to respondent authorities to consider and decide the objection dated 11.03.2026 (Annexure – P/2) filed by the petitioner and further to conduct a fair and propr investigation in the matter.

Digitally signed by HEERA HEERA LAL LAL SAHUDate: SAHU 2026.04.13 18:21:58 +0530

2

Brief facts of the case were that, on 08.03.2026, deceased Tularam Patel, a building contractor, went to the village Gadadih to drop off one Pardeshnin Bai on his motorcycle at about 10:40 pm. The accused persons namely, Kirtan Yadav, Samay Yadav, Ashish Yadav, Paltan Verma (petitioner) Rooplal Verma, Pawan Verma, Ramchand Verma and Lokesh Yadav and other associates, acting in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained the deceased and assaulted him using hands, fists, legs, sticks and sleepers on the pretext that his visits were adversely affecting the village environment. Due to the said assault, the deceased sustained grievous injuries to his head. He was immediately taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead by the doctor. Based on this, FIR bearing Crime No. 107/2026 was registered at Police Station Khairagarh, District – Khairagarh-ChhuikhadanGandai for the alleged offence against the accused persons.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that on 11.03.2026, an objection application was filed by the petitioner’s son before respondent No. 1 (Superintendent of Police), submitting that his father has been falsely implicated in the present case without any lawful basis. On the date of the incident i.e. 08.03.2026, the present petitioner had merely gone near the house of Pardeshnin Bai after hearing about a commotion in the village and was present there as a bystander along with other villagers. It was further submitted that neither the deponent nor his father witnessed any assault, and in fact, upon suggestions of the village Kotwar, they informed the police by dialling 112 and thereafter they returned home. He further submits that the present petitioner has no role, participation or prior knowledge of the alleged incident, and there exists no

3

enmity or motive against the deceased. Despite this, he has been falsely implicated as an accused without any cogent evidence or proper investigation and prayed for the deletion of the name of the present petitioner from the aforesaid FIR (copy of the application dated 11.03.2026 is annexed herein as (Annexure-P/2). He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254 and submits that fair investigation is a constitutional mandate and the procedure must be just, fair and reasonable, and not arbitrary, thereby making fair investigation an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he prayed to direct the respondent authorities to consider and decide the objection dated 11.03.2026 (Annexure-P/2) filed on behalf of the petitioner and further pleased to direct the respondents to conduct a fair and proper investigation in the matter, in the interest of justice.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that since there is no obligation to dispose of such an application during the course of the investigation, issuing such a direction would be neither necessary nor appropriate.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition.

Looking to the prayer sought by the counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner prays to direct the respondents to consider and decide the objection dated 11.03.2026 filed on behalf of the petitioner and further directs the respondents to conduct a fair and proper investigation in the matter.

4

Section 528 (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC) is engrafted to allow the High Court to intervene in cases where there is a clear abuse of process or where it is necessary to prevent injustice. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the case in hand, I am not inclined to use inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS.

Accordingly, in view of the above, the petition is dismissed at motion stage itself.

Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

H.L. Sahu

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the High Court should, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS 2023, direct the respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioner's objection dated 11.03.2026 (Annexure-P/2) and to conduct a fair and proper investigation in the matter of FIR Crime No. 107/2026.¶14
The court held
The Court, looking to the facts and circumstances, was not inclined to exercise its inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS (which corresponds to Section 482 CrPC and is available for clear abuse of process or to prevent injustice) in this case.ratio¶25

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

Babubhai vs. State of GujaratReferred¶20
Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254 · Who else cites this

Statutes considered

3 provisions across 3 enactments

AI extract

BNSS, 2023Section 528¶14
CrPCSection 482¶25
Constitution of IndiaArticle 21¶20

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
On 08.03.2026 deceased Tularam Patel, a building contractor, was allegedly wrongfully restrained and assaulted near village Gadadih by several named accused including the petitioner, sustaining grievous head injuries and was declared dead at hospital.¶17
Prior proceeding
FIR bearing Crime No. 107/2026 was registered at Police Station Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai against the accused persons for the alleged offence.¶17
Prior proceeding
On 11.03.2026 the petitioner's son filed an objection application (Annexure-P/2) before Respondent No. 1 (Superintendent of Police) asserting false implication, absence of role or motive, and praying for deletion of the petitioner's name from the FIR; the petitioner prayed for it to be considered and decided.¶18

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Paltan Verma S/o Bharat Verma (petitioner/accused)¶4
Siddharth Pandey
respondent
State of Chhattisgarh through the Superintendent of Police, Khairagarh (Respondent No. 1)¶7
Anish Tiwari
respondent
Station House Officer, Police Station Khairagarh (Respondent No. 2)¶8
Anish Tiwari

Coram

AI extract

Sanjay Kumar Jaiswalauthor¶11

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Chhattisgarh HC
Decided on: 12 Apr 2026 · April
Registered: 8 Apr 2026
Case no.: CRMP/1027/2026
CNR: CGHC010132832026
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: CRMP

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Safiq Ahmad Vs State of Chhattisgarh
9 Apr 2026
State of Chhattisgarh Vs Sanjay Kumar Yadav
9 Apr 2026
Aman Ramteke Vs State of Chhattisgarh
9 Apr 2026
Chitrakant Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh
12 Apr 2026
Vinod Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh
12 Apr 2026
Girja Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh
12 Apr 2026

Cite this judgement

Paltan Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh, CRMP/1027/2026 (CG), decided on 12 April 2026.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited1

Babubhai vs. State of GujaratReferred¶20

Open Authorities

Statutes3

BNSS, 2023Section 528
CrPCSection 482
Constitution of IndiaArticle 21

View all statutes

Procedural history3

On 08.03.2026 deceased Tularam Patel, a building contractor, was allegedly wrongfully restrained and assaulted near village Gadadih by several named accused including the petitioner, sustaining grievous head injuries and was declared dead at hospital.
FIR bearing Crime No. 107/2026 was registered at Police Station Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai against the accused persons for the alleged offence.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Parties & counsel