Govinda Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA

¶3

2026:CGHC:18264-DB

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1133 of 2026

¶6

1 - Govinda Ratre S/o Shri Raj Kumar Ratre, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Nandeli, Post Sonthi, P/s Sakti District Sakti C.G.

¶7

2 - Bed Ram Satnami S/o Shri Tila Ram Satnami, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Belkarri P/s Jaijaipur, District Sakti C.G.

¶8

3 - Chamru Rathiya S/o Shri Devcharan Rathiya Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Navapara P/s Kartala, District- Korba C.G.

¶9

4 - Anandi Sahu S/o Shri Nanhu Sahu Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Thathari, P.S. Jaijaipur, District- Sakti C.G.

¶10

... Petitioners

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur C.G.

¶13

2 - The Superintendent of Police District Janjgir Champa C.G. 3 - The Station House Office of Police Station Bamhanidih, District Janjgir Champa C.G.

¶14

... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Jeet Ram Patel, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶18

22.04.2026

¶19

1. Heard Mr. Jeet Ram Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents.

¶20

2

¶21

2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short, ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers :-

¶22

“1. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023 filed by the petitioner, in the interest of Justice.

¶23

That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR dated 05.04.2026, bearing crime no. 36/2026, registered against the petitioners under sections 10, 4 & 6 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004, and u/s 11(D) of the Prevention of Cruelty of Animal Rules, 1960, Registered at Police Station Bamhnidih, DistrictJanjgir-Champa (C.G.).

¶24

Any other relief(s), which may be deemed fit in favour of petitioners, may also be granted.”

¶25

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are lawfully engaged in the trade of agricultural cattle under the aegis of Raj Kumar Ratre, who is a duly registered Inter-State Agriculture Cattle Trader since 2015, with his registration valid till 09.11.2027. He further submits that Petitioner No. 1 is his son and the remaining petitioners are his employees/helpers assisting in the lawful business of purchase and sale of cattle strictly for agricultural purposes and in accordance with prescribed rules. It is submitted that on 05.04.2026, Raj Kumar Ratre had legitimately purchased 5 pairs of buffaloes (total 10) from different farmers/ local villagers, and all supporting purchase receipts are on record.

¶26

3

¶27

Acting under his instructions, the petitioners were transporting the said cattle on foot to village Thathari for overnight stay, with proper arrangements, and petitioner No. 4 being a local resident there. At no point were the petitioners engaged in any illegal activity; rather, they were acting within the scope of lawful employment under a licensed trader. It is further submitted that while on route near Mandi Chowk at village Pondi-Shankar, the police officials of Police Station Bamhnidih, District JanjgirChampa, arbitrarily intercepted the petitioners and demanded documents with a premeditated intent to harass. Despite immediately informing and calling Raj Kumar Ratre, who reached the spot and produced his valid trader license, the police officials misbehaved and unlawfully insisted that the documents be shown before the court. Thereafter, an FIR was illegally registered against the petitioners on vague, general, and concocted allegations, followed by their arrest and seizure of cattle on 06.04.2026. The learned JMFC, Champa, upon consideration, was pleased to grant bail to the petitioners on 07.04.2026, which itself reflects the lack of substance in the prosecution case. In absence of any cogent material indicating violation of law, the entire action of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, unjustified, and amounts to abuse of the process of law, warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court.

¶28

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and

¶29

4

¶30

submits that the present petition is wholly misconceived and deserves to be dismissed at the threshold, as the allegations disclosed in the FIR prima facie constitute cognizable offences warranting a full-fledged investigation. It is submitted that the interception of the petitioners by the police at Mandi Chowk, village Pondi-Shankar, was carried out in discharge of lawful duty on receipt of credible information regarding suspicious transportation of cattle. Upon being stopped, the petitioners failed to produce valid and complete documents relating to ownership, transport, and lawful movement of the cattle at the relevant time, thereby giving rise to reasonable suspicion of illegal transportation. The subsequent production of a license by Raj Kumar Ratre does not ipso facto validate the act, particularly when the manner, timing (late evening hours), and mode of transportation raise serious concerns requiring thorough verification. The seizure of cattle and registration of FIR were thus carried out strictly in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the plea of the petitioners that they are merely helpers or employees cannot absolve them of liability at this stage, as their active participation in the transportation of cattle is an admitted fact and the extent of their involvement is a matter of investigation and trial. The documents relied upon by the petitioners, including purchase receipts and registration certificate, are matters of evidence which cannot be conclusively examined in proceedings of this nature. The grant of bail by the learned JMFC does not

¶31

5

¶32

dilute the seriousness of allegations nor does it render the FIR illegal. At this juncture, it is well settled that where the FIR discloses commission of an offence, the investigation should not be stifled. The present petition is an attempt to prematurely scuttle a legitimate prosecution, and therefore, in the absence of any exceptional circumstances or patent illegality, no interference is warranted by this Hon’ble Court.

¶33

5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offences and cannot be said to be devoid of substance at this stage. The contention of the petitioners that they were acting under a valid license issued in favour of Raj Kumar Ratre and were merely transporting cattle in the course of lawful business involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings of this nature. The circumstances surrounding the interception of the petitioners, the manner of transportation, and the adequacy and genuineness of the documents produced are all matters requiring thorough investigation. It is well settled that at the stage of considering a petition for quashing, this Court is not required to embark upon a meticulous examination of evidence or adjudicate upon the defence of the accused.

¶34

6. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not fall within the limited parameters

¶35

6

¶36

warranting interference for quashing of FIR/proceedings. The allegations, as they stand, disclose a triable case and necessitate a proper investigation in accordance with law. No case of abuse of process of law or miscarriage of justice is made out.

¶37

7. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed . However, it is clarified that any observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not prejudice the case of either party during the course of investigation or trial.

¶38

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

¶39

Chandra

Govinda Ratre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govinda Ratre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karl Storz Endoscopy India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mahesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shalini Sahu Vs the Deputy Director

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Rajesh Sharma

Smt. Ankita Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh