Chattisgarh High Court
Nandulal And Another vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Another on 25 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:14285
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 140 of 2020
1 - Nandulal S/o Gainduram Bambode, Aged About 58 Years R/o Aktai,
Police Station Ranitarai, Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh), District :
Durg, Chhattisgarh
2 - Ramdayal Chandrakar S/o Late Bhuwanlal, Aged About 65 Years R/o
Motipara Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh
... Petitioners
versus
Digitally
RAJSHEKHAR signed by
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Ranitarai, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg,
SONI RAJSHEKHAR
SONI
Chhattisgarh
2 - Jaiprakash Thakur S/o Late Samaruram Thakur, Aged About 35 Years
R/o Village Aktai, Police Station Ranitarai, District Durg Chhattisgarh,
District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate,
assisted by Ms. Swati Agrawal,
Advocate.
For Respondent No.1/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer.
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
25.03.2026
1. Heard Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms.
Swati Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also
heard Ms. Palak Dwivedi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent
No.1/State.
2
2. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
short, “CrPC“) seeking quashment of the challan/charge-sheet
(Annexure-A) as well as the entire criminal proceedings, from
inception to culmination, pending before the learned Fifth
Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Criminal Case No. 21/2015, on
the ground that continuance of the same would amount to abuse
of the process of law, and, therefore, prays that the present
petition be allowed in the interest of justice.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that a criminal case bearing Crime
No. 52/2014 came to be registered at Police Station Ranitarai at the
instance of respondent No.2, on the basis of which, after due
investigation, the police authorities filed a charge-sheet before the
Court of the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District
Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 34
of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3 and 5 of the
Explosive Substances Act. It is stated that the accused persons,
having been arrested on 08.10.2014 and subsequently enlarged on
bail, have since been facing trial in Criminal Case No. 21/2015
before the said Court. It is further borne out from the record that,
subsequently, at the instance of the complainant Nandlal, a
separate complaint came to be instituted on 09.11.2017, pursuant
3
to which summons were issued against certain persons namely
Jaiprakash Thakur, Ramkhilawan and Nohar Sahu for various
offences punishable under Sections 166, 167, 218, 219, 193, 196,
211, 182, 500, 420, 468, 471, 120, 120-B and 34 of the IPC, along
with Sections 326 and 338 of the IPC.
4. Consequently, the said complaint was registered as Complaint
Case No. 509/2017 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Patan. On the strength of the aforesaid sequence of events,
it is contended by the petitioners that the very initiation of
proceedings and filing of the charge-sheet against them, as well as
continuation of trial before the learned 5th Additional Sessions
Judge, Durg, is wholly arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and contrary
to settled principles of criminal law, rendering the same liable to be
quashed in exercise of inherent powers of this Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
charge-sheet filed by the police authorities is entirely
misconceived, baseless and suffers from grave legal infirmities. It
is contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioners
are devoid of any substantive material and are founded merely on
conjectures, surmises and unsubstantiated assertions, which do
not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. It is
further submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated
4
due to ulterior motives and personal vendetta, and that the
investigating agency has failed to conduct a fair, impartial and
objective investigation in accordance with law. According to the
learned counsel, the continuation of criminal proceedings against
the petitioners, in the absence of any prima facie case, amounts to
gross abuse of the process of Court and would result in
miscarriage of justice. Hence, it is urged that this Court, in exercise
of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, ought to
intervene and quash the impugned charge-sheet as well as the
entire proceedings arising therefrom.
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for
respondent No.1 has also opposed the petition and submits that
the impugned charge-sheet has been filed strictly in accordance
with law after due and proper investigation conducted by the
competent police authorities. It is contended that the material
collected during the course of investigation clearly discloses the
involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged
offences, and as such, a prima facie case is made out against them
warranting their prosecution. Learned State counsel further
submits that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are to be
exercised sparingly and with great caution, and only in cases where
no offence is made out on the face of the record. In the present
5
case, since the allegations and the evidence collected require
appreciation during trial, interference at this stage would be
unwarranted. Therefore, it is prayed that the petition, being devoid
of merits, deserves to be dismissed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials available on record.
8. Perusal of the charge-sheet, it appears that the prosecution has,
after conducting due investigation, collected material indicating
that on 17.04.2014, the applicant, while working in a stone quarry
and engaged in the process of blasting by filling gunpowder and
gravel in drilled holes, sustained grievous injuries resulting in
damage to both his eyes due to an explosion. The charge-sheet
further reflects that the incident occurred in the quarry allegedly
being operated under the supervision of the accused persons, and
that there was prima facie non-compliance with statutory
requirements relating to handling and use of explosive substances.
It is also borne out that the investigating agency has seized
materials from the spot, which upon examination were found to
contain residue of chemical nitrates, thereby lending support to
the prosecution version regarding use of explosive substances. The
material collected during investigation, including statements of
witnesses and seizure memos, prima facie discloses involvement of
6
the accused persons in the alleged offences, and accordingly, a
charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court.
9. At this juncture, it is well-settled that while exercising inherent
powers under Section 482 CrPC, this Court does not sit as a Court
of appeal to meticulously examine the correctness or otherwise of
the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet or to conduct a roving
enquiry into disputed questions of fact. The scope of interference
at this stage is limited to ascertaining whether the allegations, as
they stand, prima facie constitute an offence or whether the
proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide or instituted
with ulterior motives. In the present case, the contents of the
charge-sheet and the material accompanying it cannot be said to
be so absurd or inherently improbable so as to warrant
interference by this Court.
10. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, primarily
relating to false implication, lack of evidence, and improper
investigation, are essentially matters of defence, which require
appreciation of evidence and can only be adjudicated upon by the
trial Court after the parties lead evidence. Such disputed questions
cannot be gone into in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. At this
stage, what is required to be seen is the existence of a prima facie
case, and not the sufficiency or reliability of the evidence.
7
11. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the material available on record discloses a prima facie case
against the petitioners, and the continuation of criminal
proceedings cannot be said to be an abuse of the process of Court.
No case is made out for exercising inherent powers to quash the
charge-sheet or the consequential proceedings.
12. Accordingly, the instant petition being devoid of merits is hereby
dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost(s).
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Rajshekhar
