Satyam Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

“(i) QUASH the F.I.R as well as entire charge sheet filed by the police of Police Station- Kotwali Ambikapur, District Surguja, (C.G.) before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh in Crime No. 202/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 296, 351 (3), 191 (2), 191 (3), 190, 109, 324(4), 112 of B.N.S.

¶24

(ii) QUASH the entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No. 11619/2025, "State of Chhattisgarh V/s. Mukesh Yadav and others" pending before the Court of Chief Surguja, Judicial Magistrate Ambikapur, District Chhattisgarh in the interest of justice.

¶25

(iii) PASS such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

¶26

As per the prosecution case, on 22.03.2025 the complainant Monu Sahu lodged a written report at Police Station Kotwali, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.), alleging that after completing his workout at a gym, he was sitting in his Scorpio car parked outside the gym premises when co-accused Sushant Singh @ Anshu forcibly entered the vehicle and assaulted him with a knife with an alleged intention to kill him, causing injuries on his hand. It is further alleged that when the complainant tried to escape and ran towards the gym, the present petitioner along with other coaccused persons assaulted him with iron rods and other weapons,

¶27

3

¶28

chased him and extended threats to his life. Apprehending danger, the complainant hid himself inside the bathroom of the gym, while the accused persons allegedly abused him in filthy language and caused damage to his vehicle by breaking the window glasses. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered an FIR against the petitioner and other accused persons for various offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During investigation, additional offences were incorporated and statements of witnesses were recorded. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet on 30.12.2025 before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), showing some of the accused persons, including the petitioner, as absconding and separating certain accused persons from the proceedings in accordance with law. Thereafter, the case was registered as Criminal Case No. 11619/2025 titled “State of Chhattisgarh vs. Mukesh Yadav and Others” and is presently pending consideration before the competent trial Court.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is wholly unjustified and amounts to abuse of the process of law, as neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet discloses the essential ingredients of the offences alleged under Sections 296, 351(3), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109, 324(4) and 112 of the BNS, 2023. It is contended that the allegations levelled in the FIR are vague, omnibus and inherently improbable, without attributing any specific overt act or distinct role

¶30

4

¶31

to the present petitioner, and the material collected during investigation also fails to establish any common intention or unlawful object so as to attract the rigours of the aforesaid provisions. Learned counsel further submits that the injury sustained by the complainant is simple in nature and not on any vital part of the body, and the medical report does not support the prosecution version regarding use of any sharp-edged or deadly weapon, thereby creating serious contradictions between the ocular and medical evidence. It is also urged that several witnesses in their statements have not supported the allegation of use of knife or other lethal weapons, and even persons initially named in the FIR were subsequently separated from the case by the investigating agency, rendering the prosecution story doubtful. It is further submitted that the complainant himself had moved an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate seeking compounding of the matter on the basis of compromise, which indicates that the dispute was of a personal nature arising out of a minor scuffle rather than a premeditated criminal act. Learned counsel lastly submits that the petitioner is a young college student and his implication in such a serious case without cogent material would gravely prejudice his future prospects. In these circumstances, the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed.

¶32

Learned State counsel, while opposing the petition, submits that a plain reading of the written complaint and the FIR lodged by the complainant clearly discloses specific and serious allegations

¶33

5

¶34

against the petitioner and other co-accused persons regarding a pre-planned and concerted attack carried out with deadly weapons with an intention to cause fatal injuries. It is contended that the complainant has categorically narrated that while he was sitting in his vehicle after finishing his work at the gym, one of the coaccused forcibly entered the vehicle and inflicted a knife blow, and when he attempted to flee towards the gym premises, the present petitioner along with other accused persons assaulted him with iron rods, fighter and other weapons and continued to chase and threaten him with dire consequences. Learned State counsel further submits that the allegations also disclose acts of criminal intimidation, use of abusive language and deliberate damage to the complainant’s vehicle, thereby attracting the provisions invoked in the FIR. It is argued that the statements of eyewitnesses recorded during investigation corroborate the prosecution version regarding the unlawful assembly and common intention of the accused persons to cause grievous harm, and the matter involves disputed questions of fact which can only be adjudicated upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence during trial. The State therefore submits that at this preliminary stage, when the material on record discloses prima facie commission of offences, the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court ought not to be exercised to scuttle a legitimate prosecution, and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶35

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition.

¶36

6

¶37

Upon careful perusal of the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations made against the petitioner disclose prima facie commission of cognizable offences requiring adjudication on the basis of evidence before the competent trial Court. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner pertain to disputed questions of fact, including the nature of his participation in the alleged incident, the veracity of the prosecution version, medical inconsistencies and the effect of the alleged compromise, which cannot be conclusively examined in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. At this stage, the Court is only required to ascertain whether the uncontroverted allegations and the material placed on record make out a case to proceed, and not to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence or determine the probable defence of the accused. Considering the seriousness of the accusations and the existence of eyewitness accounts, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned proceedings.

¶38

Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶39

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

¶40

Manpreet

Satyam Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyam Singh 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

Chandan Kumar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohit Ram Rathiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Branch Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Anita Rathore

Gayatri Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santoshi Bai Vs Sushila Bai Rohidas

Basant Agrawal @ Lambu Vs State of Chhattisgarh