Deepak Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2026.07.23 10:12:34 +0530

¶3

CGHC010272732026

¶4

2026:CGHC:31095-DB NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRMP No. 1891 of 2026

¶7

Deepak Kumar Gupta S/o Prem Sagar Gupta Aged About 33 Years R/o Fundurdihari Mahuapara Ambikapur, P.S. Gandhinagar Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer of Chowki Khadgawan Thana Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Uday Pratap Chowdhary Through Constable No. 470 Ravindra Jaiswal S/o Shri Ramji Chowdhary, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Jarhi Qtr. No. C11 Urjanagar Colony Bhatgaon, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶14

For Petitioner	: Mr. Vivekanand Samaddar, Advocate
For Respondent No.1/State	: Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate

¶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

22.07.2026

¶19

1. Heard Mr. Vivekanand Samaddar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1.

¶20

2

¶21

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘B.N.S.S.’) with the following relief(s):-

¶22

“i. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned first information report (F.I.R.) No. 19/2026 Registered At Chowki Khadgawan Thana Pratappur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) For Offences Under Section 305(B), 331(3), 316(5), 238(C), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Final Report No 81/2026, Dated 16/04/2026, in the interest of justice.

¶23

ii. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the Order taking Cognizance Dated 20/04/2026 Passed In Criminal Case No - 753/2026 in case of (State Of Chhattisgarh VS Neeraj Yadav & Anothers) Passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pratappur DistrictSurajpur (C.G.)., in the interest of justice (C.G.).

¶24

iii. This Hon'ble Court may Kindly please to quash/ Set aside the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No 753/2026 (State Of Chhattisgarh VS Neeraj Yadav & Anothers) Passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pratappur District- Surajpur (C.G.)., in the interest of Justice. ”

¶25

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the entire prosecution against him is founded on mere suspicion and

¶26

3

¶27

circumstantial allegations without there being any legally admissible material demonstrating his active involvement in the alleged theft of coal from the Jagannathpur Open Project, Bhatgaon Area, SECL. It is contended that the allegation against the petitioner is that he facilitated the illegal exit of the truck-trailer bearing Registration No. CG10 BL 9649 by tampering with the boom-barrier; however, the documentary material placed on record itself belies the said allegation. Learned counsel submits that on the date of the alleged incident, i.e., 15.01.2026, the petitioner was not on duty and was on rest, which is duly reflected in the official duty roster issued by the SECL. It is further submitted that a show-cause notice issued to the petitioner by the General Manager, SECL, was duly replied to and, being satisfied with his explanation, the management revoked his suspension and permitted him to resume duties with effect from 24.01.2026. Thus, according to learned counsel, even the employer found no material to attribute any misconduct to the petitioner.

¶28

4. Learned counsel further submits that the investigation has been conducted in a wholly arbitrary and unfair manner. It is argued that despite repeated representations made by the petitioner and his wife asserting his innocence, and despite requests under the Right to Information Act seeking CCTV footage, duty registers and other contemporaneous records, the relevant authorities failed to furnish the material which would have established the petitioner's innocence. It is further contended that the petitioner's memorandum statement has been incorrectly recorded and does not reflect what was actually stated

¶29

4

¶30

by him during investigation. According to learned counsel, the petitioner was summoned on the pretext of recording his statement but was subsequently arrested, his signatures were allegedly obtained on blank papers and his statement was manipulated by the investigating agency. It is also submitted that the petitioner had, much prior to the incident, complained to the police regarding threats extended by one of the coaccused, namely Nadeem alias Bobby, for refusing to permit unauthorized vehicles to pass through the boom-barrier without proper authorization, but no action was taken on the said complaint.

¶31

5. It is lastly submitted that even if the entire prosecution case is accepted at its face value, the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 305(B), 331(3), 316(5), 238(C) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are not made out against the petitioner. There is no material to show that the petitioner participated in any criminal conspiracy or played any role in the alleged theft of coal. The prosecution has deliberately ignored the role of the officials who were actually on duty on the relevant date, namely the Loading Inspector, Dispatch In-charge, Technical Inspector, Nodal Officer and SECL guards, and has falsely implicated the petitioner despite documentary evidence demonstrating that he was on rest. It is, therefore, submitted that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, and accordingly, the impugned FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶32

5

¶33

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner disclose the commission of cognizable offences and the investigation has unearthed sufficient material demonstrating the petitioner's involvement in an organized theft of coal from the Jagannathpur Open Cast Project, Bhatgaon Area, SECL. It is submitted that the FIR was registered on the written complaint of the Manager (Mining), SECL, alleging theft of about 40 tonnes of coal worth approximately Rs.1,90,000/- by illegally removing the loaded truck-trailer bearing Registration No. CG10 BL 9649 from the mine premises without following the prescribed procedure. During investigation, the stolen truck-trailer was recovered loaded with coal and, on the basis of CCTV footage, seizure memos, memorandum statements of the co-accused, bank transaction details and other documentary evidence, the investigating agency found that the theft was committed in a well-planned and organized manner with the active connivance of several persons, including certain SECL employees posted at the boom-barrier and other officials. Accordingly, after completion of investigation, Charge-sheet No.81/2026 has been filed against the accused persons for the offences found to be made out.

¶34

7. Learned State counsel further submits that the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding his innocence, his alleged absence from duty, the correctness of his memorandum statement, the effect of departmental proceedings, and the alleged non-supply of CCTV footage involve disputed questions of fact which can only be adjudicated upon

¶35

6

¶36

during trial on the basis of evidence. It is contended that the chargesheet discloses a prima facie case against the petitioner and the material collected during investigation cannot be examined or appreciated in a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 as if this Court were conducting a mini trial. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner has failed to make out any exceptional case warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and, accordingly, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶37

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶38

9. 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 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.).

¶39

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters 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

¶40

7

¶41

(Cri) 615 , the Supreme 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.

¶42

11. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has authoritatively settled the scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The Apex Court has held that the power to quash criminal proceedings is required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the rarest of rare cases. It has been categorically observed that while considering a prayer for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR, nor can it appreciate the evidence or conduct a mini trial. The Court is only required to examine whether the allegations, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court further emphasized that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at

¶43

8

¶44

the threshold, that investigation into cognizable offences should ordinarily be permitted to proceed unhindered, and that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with great caution and self-restraint, save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in manifest miscarriage of justice.

¶45

12. Very recently, in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid principles and further held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS), the High Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact or evaluate the evidentiary worth of the material collected during investigation. Unless all these parameters are cumulatively satisfied, the High Court ought not to interfere in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, leaving the parties to establish their respective cases before the trial Court in accordance with law.

¶46

13. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the allegations contained in the impugned First Information Report and the material collected during investigation cannot be said to be so absurd, inherently improbable or wholly devoid of substance so as to warrant exercise of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The FIR was lodged by the Manager (Mining), Jagannathpur Open Cast Project, Bhatgaon Area, SECL, alleging theft of

¶47

9

¶48

approximately 40 tonnes of coal worth about Rs.1,90,000/- from the mine premises by illegally facilitating the exit of Truck Trailer No. CG10 BL 9649. During the course of investigation, the investigating agency recovered the said vehicle loaded with coal, collected CCTV footage, recorded the memorandum statements of various accused persons, seized relevant documents, and unearthed material indicating that the theft was committed in a planned and organized manner with the assistance of several persons, including certain employees posted in the mine premises. Thus, the criminal law has not been set in motion merely on the basis of bald allegations but on the strength of material collected during investigation.

¶49

14. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated despite the fact that he was on rest on the date of the alleged incident and had no role whatsoever in facilitating the theft of coal. It has further been contended that the petitioner's explanation to the departmental show-cause notice was accepted by the SECL authorities, his suspension was revoked and he was permitted to rejoin duty, thereby demonstrating that even his employer found no material against him. Learned counsel has also contended that the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of manipulated memorandum statements; that CCTV footage and other documents sought under the Right to Information Act were not supplied; and that the petitioner had, much prior to the incident, complained to the authorities regarding threats extended by one of the co-accused. In the opinion of this Court, all these submissions constitute the defence of the

¶50

10

¶51

petitioner and involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS.

¶52

15. From a perusal of the charge-sheet, it transpires that the investigating agency has not proceeded merely on the basis of the allegations contained in the FIR. The charge-sheet reflects that during investigation the stolen truck-trailer was recovered, CCTV footage was examined, memorandum statements of several accused persons were recorded, bank transactions were scrutinized, and statements of witnesses were collected. The investigating agency has also referred to the alleged involvement of various employees of SECL and has, upon appreciation of the material collected, filed Charge-sheet No.81/2026 against the accused persons for the offences found to be made out. Whether such material is sufficient to ultimately establish the guilt of the petitioner is a matter which falls exclusively within the domain of the trial Court and cannot be examined by this Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction.

¶53

16. Equally untenable is the submission that the allegations contained in the FIR and the charge-sheet, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of any offence against the petitioner. The prosecution case is that the theft of coal was committed in an organized manner by several accused persons acting in concert and that certain employees of the SECL facilitated the illegal entry and exit of vehicles from the mine premises. Whether the petitioner was actually on rest, whether he had any role in the alleged conspiracy, whether the

¶54

11

¶55

departmental proceedings exonerate him, and whether the evidence collected by the investigating agency is ultimately reliable are all matters requiring appreciation of evidence during trial and cannot be conclusively adjudicated in a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS.

¶56

17. This Court is also unable to accept the contention that since the petitioner claims to have been on leave on the date of the incident, the entire prosecution deserves to be quashed. The plea of alibi or absence from duty is essentially a defence available to the petitioner, which can be established only by leading cogent evidence before the competent trial Court. Likewise, the petitioner's contention that the investigating agency has incorrectly recorded his memorandum statement, that the RTI replies support his innocence, and that the actual responsibility lay upon other officials posted on duty are all disputed factual issues which cannot be adjudicated at this stage by appreciating the evidentiary value of the material produced by either side.

¶57

18. Upon cumulative consideration of the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation, including the charge-sheet, this Court is satisfied that the allegations, if taken at their face value and accepted for the limited purpose of the present proceedings, disclose the commission of cognizable offences requiring adjudication before the competent criminal Court. The allegations cannot be characterised as inherently absurd, manifestly frivolous or so improbable that no prudent person could reach a prima facie conclusion regarding the commission of the alleged offences. As held by the

¶58

12

¶59

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the rarest of rare cases. At the stage of investigation or after submission of the chargesheet, the High Court is not expected to embark upon an appreciation of evidence or adjudicate the correctness of the rival versions. The decision in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra) reiterates that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS), the High Court ought not to undertake a mini trial or evaluate the defence of the accused at the threshold.

¶60

19. The defence projected by the petitioner, namely that he was on rest on the date of occurrence, that the departmental authorities accepted his explanation and revoked his suspension, that CCTV footage was not supplied despite applications under the Right to Information Act, that his memorandum statement was manipulated during investigation, and that he has been falsely implicated while the actual culprits have been shielded, are all matters constituting his defence. These submissions involve disputed questions of fact and mixed questions of fact and law, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS.

¶61

20. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as well as in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra), the High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, does not conduct a mini trial, appreciate the evidentiary

¶62

13

¶63

value of the material collected during investigation, or record findings on disputed factual issues, all of which fall within the exclusive domain of the trial Court.

¶64

21. In the considered opinion of this Court, the present case does not fall within any of the categories illustratively carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and reaffirmed in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra) warranting exercise of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS The allegations contained in the FIR, read with the material collected during investigation and reflected in Charge-sheet No.81/2026, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences requiring adjudication upon evidence before the competent criminal Court. This Court, therefore, finds no exceptional circumstance warranting interference with the impugned FIR, charge-sheet or the consequential criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶65

22. It is, however, made clear that the observations recorded herein are confined only to the adjudication of the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case, which shall be decided independently by the competent trial Court on the basis of the evidence led before it.

¶66

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

¶67

Anu

Deepak Kumar Gupta v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Kumar Gupta v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushila Devi Vs Ram Bai

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Vinit Sharan

Jeevanlal Dhobi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pratima Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramnaresh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajasthan Transport Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited