Chattisgarh High Court
Manoj Kumar Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:16104-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 954 of 2026
1 - Manoj Kumar Singh S/o Kailash Singh, Aged About 56 Years, R/o
Shishubagan, Raniganj, District- Burdwan, West Bengal.
2 - Jaisram Chaudhary S/o Ramkaran Chaudhary, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Baranda, Post Bankati, Police Station- Lalganj, District- Basti
(U.P.)
3 - Aslam @ Abdul Salam S/o Abu Harera, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Jamdashahi, Police Station- Walterganj, District- Basti (U.P.)
... Petitioners
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Baradwar, District -
Sakti (C.G.)
... Respondent
Digitally signed by
MOHAMMED
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
AADIL KHAN
Date: 2026.04.09
12:08:53 +0530
For Petitioners : Mr. Niraj Baghel, Advocate.
For State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate.
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
06-04-2026
1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 528
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the following
2
prayer(s):-
“(i) Quash Charge Sheet No. 26 of 2023 filed against the petitioners for the
alleged offences under Sections 420, 407, 408, 120-B and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, arising out of FIR No. 10 of 2023 registered at Police Station
Baradwar, District Sakti (C.G.).
(ii) Quash and set aside the order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti in Criminal Case No. 222 of 2023,
whereby cognizance has been taken for the offences under Sections 420,
(iii) quash and set aside the order dated 11.12.2024 whereby the learned trial
Court framed charges against Manoj Kumar and Prakash Chaudhary under
Sections 420/34, 407/34 and 120-B/34 and against Aslam @ Abbas Salam
(iv) Quash and set aside the order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the learned
First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti in Criminal Revision No. 01 of 2025,
whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners against the order framing of
charge has been dismissed.
(v) Consequently, quash the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case
No. 222 of 2023, arising out of Charge Sheet No. 26 of 2023 (filed pursuant to
FIR No. 10 of 2023 registered at Police Station Baradwar, District Sakti)
pending before the Court of chief Judicial Magistrate Sakti, as against the
present petitioners.
(vi) Pass any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of
justice.”
2. The petitioners are accused persons in Crime No.10/2023,
registered at Police Station Baradwar, District Sakti (C.G.) for the
3
offences under Sections 420, 407, 408, 120-B and 34 of the IPC. The
brief facts of the case is that, police of Police Station Baradwar received
a secret information that the tankers No.CG 04 NJ 8382 and CG 04 NJ
8385 proceeding towards Raigarh loaded with adulterated furnace oil.
The police along with the search party proceeded towards the informed
place and intercepted the said two tankers near Gupta Dhaba, NH
No.49, Baradwar. On being interrogation they disclosed their names
and informed that they proceeded from Lakholi Depot Raipur and going
JSPL Ispat Nahar Pali, Raigarh to unload the furnace oil. They also
disclosed that with the connivance of the co-accused Aslam @ Abdul
Salam had prepared a plan and in furtherance thereof they extracted
about 7000 liter furnace oil from the aforesaid two tanker and thereafter
mixed the sulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide in the water and filled it in
the said tankers equal amounting to 7000 liter. All the activities have
been carried out near river at Sheorinarayan. The extracted furnace oil
were kept in plastic tank concealed at the spot and adulterated furnace
oil was filled up in the tankers. Based on their memorandum statement
the tankers, loaded adulterated furnace oil, builty challan and furnace oil
extracted from the tankers have been seized along with other allied
equipments. The offence has been registered and after investigation
charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners who were arrested
and other accused persons showing them absconding.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the very
foundation of the prosecution case by alleging that the furnace oil
transported in the tankers was adulterated with chemicals for the
4
purposes of wrongful gain, in view of the scientific examination report
conducted by the Laboratory of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. completely
demolishes the prosecution case. The said test report conducted by the
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Korba categorically clarifies that the furnace
oil samples meets the prescribed BIS standards. The said report was
produced by the prosecution before the learned trial Court under the
direction issued by them which clearly establishes that the furnace oil
seized from the tankers was in its correct density. It is further submitted
that once the scientific test report negates the allegation of adulteration
the continuation of the prosecution on assumption becomes legally
unsustainable. It is also submitted that the prosecution has failed to
adduce any independent expert evidence or technical material to
substantiate the allegation of adulteration and the case is primarily
founded upon alleged memorandum statement recorded by police. The
memorandum statement without there being any corroboration or
discovery of incriminating fact do not constitute substantive evidence in
law. There is no complaint lodged by the consignee, transporter or
owner of the furnace oil alleging any loss, cheating or breach of trust
and thus, the allegation for the offence under Sections 420, 407 and
408 of the IPC wholly speculative and devoid of essential ingredients.
There is no material to establish dishonestly misappropriation of the
entrusted property nor any evidence of employer employee relationship
so as to attract the offence under Section 408 of the IPC. Even if the
entire prosecution case is accepted as its face value, the essential
ingredients of the alleged offences are missing and therefore,
5
continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of
process of law. He would further submit that the existence of fraudulent
or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction is sine qua non
for the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC, mere
allegation without any sufficient supporting material would not constitute
the offence of cheating. In the present case, there is lack of any proved
adulteration or wrongful gain. Therefore, the impugned FIR as well as
the charge sheet and criminal proceeding against the petitioners may
be quashed. In support of his submission he would rely upon the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of
Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Anand Kumar
Mohatta and Another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home
and Another, (2019) 11 SCC 706.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission
made by learned counsel for the petitioners and has submitted that the
petitioners have taken out the original furnace oil loaded from the
company and by preparing adulterated furnace oil filled it in the tankers
which ultimately found to be substandard, which clearly shows the
intentions of the petitioners to cheat the consignee. There is sufficient
material on the record that the petitioners have committed the offence
with the collusion of other accused persons who are still absconding. He
would further submit that the Court is not required to meticulously
examine the evidence available in the petition for quashing of the
charge sheet and only prima facie allegations are to be seen
irrespective of ultimate possibility of acquittal or conviction. In the
6
present case there are sufficient evidence available to proceed with the
trial of the case and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material annexed with the petition.
6. This Court has given its anxious and thoughtful consideration to
the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties and
examined the material available on record. The entire prosecution case
is founded upon the allegation that the petitioners in furtherance of the
criminal conspiracy had adulterated the furnace oil by mixing water and
hazardous chemicals such as sulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide with a
view to derive wrongful gain, thus the allegation of adulteration
constitutes the very spectrum and foundational basis upon which the
prosecution seeks to build its case against the petitioners. Learned
counsel for the petitioners draws attention of this Court towards the test
report submitted by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Korba Terminal Lab
Gopalpur, Post Office Jamnipali, District Korba, which has been
annexed at page No.106 of the petition and according to the said report
the sent oil confirms its BIS standards, the relevant part of this report is
necessary to be reproduce here:-
“iqfyl v/kh{kd]
dk;kZy; iqfyl v/kh{kd]
ftyk&läh ¼N-x-½
egksn;]
fo”k; % ,Q+vks fjtYV~l
mijksä fo”k;kUrxZr vkids i=kad iqv-@läh@jhMj&1@33&ch@2023 fnukad 02-08-2024 dk lanHkZ xzg.k djsAa
d`i;k voxr gksa fd bl dk;kZy; }kjk iwoZ esa gh ¼fnukad 06-03-2023½ izLrqr mRikn gsrq ijh{k.k fjiksVZ tkjh dh tk pqdh gSA
vkids vkxzg ij ;gkWa ;g mYys[k gS fd izLrqr mRikn chvkbZ,l r; ekudksa dk izkIr dj jgk gS tks fd ijh{k.k fjiksVZ esa nf’kZr gSAvr% vkidh vksj lwpukFkZ izfs “kr gSA”
7
7. Further, the test report which has been annexed at page No.96 of
the petition shows that the sample of furnace oil having its ‘Density at 15o
C under Test Method P 16 confirms 947.1 kg/m 3 specification and Water
Content under Test Method of P 40 is 0.10 under the specification of
Max. 1.00 vol% for vehicle CG 04 NJ 8382 and at page No.98 which is
test report for vehicle CG 04 NJ 8385 shows that the furnace oil in that
sample is having Density at 15o C under Test Method P 16 confirms
950.7 kg/m3 specification and Water Content under Test Method of P 40
is 0.10 under the specification of Max. 1.00 vol%. The competent
laboratory of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Korba Terminal Laboratory
Gopalpur submitted its report wherein it has been opined that the furnace
oil samples confirms prescribed BIS standards. The report further
indicates that the density and other requisite parameters of the furnace
oil were found to be within permissible limit, thereby effectively ruling out
any possibility of adulteration. Such report, being an expert opinion
rendered by specialized and authorized laboratory upon scientific
analysis carries considerable evidentiary weight and significance in
determining the veracity of the prosecution’s allegation of adulteration
being the core ingredient and its absence renders the remaining
allegations devoid of substance.
8. This Court also finds considerable merits in the submission
advanced by the petitioners that no complaint has been lodged by the
consignee company, transporter or owner of the furnace oil alleging any
loss, deception or breach of trust. There is nothing on record to
demonstrate that the petitioners had disconsolately misappropriated or
8
converted any entrusted property for their own use, which is sine qua non
for constituting the offence under Section 407 and 408 of the IPC.
9. At this juncture it would be apposite to refer the settled legal
principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and
others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down
the categories of cases where criminal proceedings are liable to be
quashed including the cases where allegations do not prima facie
constitute any offence or inherently improbable and it has been
observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 102 and 103 that –
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of
law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to
the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not
be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae
and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised.
(1)Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are 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.
9
(2)Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support
of the same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis
of which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which criminal proceeding is a instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge.
10
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of
quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very
sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare
cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the
extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary
jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.”
10. In the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another Vs. State
(NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and Another, (2019) 11 SCC
706 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 14 and 16 of its
judgment that:-
“14. First, we would like to deal with the submission of the learned Senior
Counsel for Respondent 2 that once the charge-sheet is filed, petition for
quashing of FIR is untenable. We do not see any merit in this submission,
keeping in mind the position of this Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of
Gujarat [(2011) 7 SCC 59 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23]. In Joseph Salvaraj A.
[(2011) 7 SCC 59 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23], this Court while deciding the
question whether the High Court could entertain the Section 482 petition for
quashing of FIR, when the charge-sheet was filed by the police during the
pendency of the Section 482 petition, observed : (SCC p. 63, para 16)
“16. Thus, from the general conspectus of the various sections
under which the appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted
would show that the same are not made out even prima facie from the
complainant’s FIR. Even if the charge-sheet had been filed, the learned
Single Judge [Joesph Saivaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, 2007 SCC OnLine
Guj 365] could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have
been committed by the appellant were prima facie made out from the
complainant’s FIR, charge- sheet, documents, etc. or not.”
11
15. Even otherwise it must be remembered that the provision invoked by the
accused before the High Court is Section 482 CrPC and that this Court is
hearing an appeal from an order under Section 482 CrPC. Section 482 CrPC
reads as follows:-
“482. Saving of inherent powers of the High Court .–Nothing in
this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the
High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to
any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
16. There is nothing in the words of this section which restricts the exercise of
the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage
of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High
Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC even when the
discharge application is pending with the trial court [G. Sagar Suri v. State of
U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636, para 7 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513. Umesh Kumar v. State
of A.P., (2013) 10 SCC 591, para 20 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 338 : (2014) 2 SCC
(L&S) 237] . Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated
against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has
advanced and the allegations have materialised into a charge-sheet. On the
contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands
aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge-sheet after investigation.
The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of
any court.”
11. Applying the aforesaid principles of law to the facts of the present
case and having gone through the entire material produced by the
petitioners, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution,
in the face of clear and exculpatory scientific evidence, is wholly
unsustainable and its continuation would result in miscarriage of justice.
12
Accordingly, the present case falls squarely within the parameters
warranting interference under the inherent jurisdiction. The petition,
therefore, deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The proceeding of
Criminal Case No. 222/2023 pending before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate Sakti under Section 420, 407, 408, 120-B, 34 of the IPC
arising out of Charge Sheet No.26/2023, FIR of Crime No.10/2023
registered at Police Station Baradwar, Sakti and the order dated
20-05-2025 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge,
Sakti in Criminal Revision No.01/2025, only against the petitioners
Manoj Kumar Singh, Jaisram Chaudhary and Aslam @ Abdul Salam,
are hereby quashed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Aadil
