Chattisgarh High Court
Siyaram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 August, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
CGHC010279082026 2026:CGHC:33359-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2013 of 2026
Siyaram Sahu S/o Ganga Prasad Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o
Village Ranai, Police Station Patna, District Korea Chhattisgarh
MANPREET
... Petitioner(s)
KAUR
Digitally signed by
MANPREET KAUR
versus
Date: 2026.08.04
11:10:07 +0530
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Ajak Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh
2 - Rajendra Singh S/o Shri Ram Prasad Singh Aged About 48 Years
Presently Posted At Police Patna, Baikunthpur, District Koriya
Chhattisgarh Presently Posted As Sub-Inspector, Police Station Kotwali,
Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. G.A.
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
03.08.2026
1. Heard Mr. Ghanshyam Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate
2
for respondent No.1/ State.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer:
“It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may
kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned
order of framing of charge dated Dt. 22.05.2026
(Annexure P-1) passed by Learned Special Judge,
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, District Koriya
(Baikunthpur) (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case
No.15/2024 for the offence punishable under
section 469, 471, of IPC and Section 66 (C) of IT
Act and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of ST/SC
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and subsequent
proceeding along with the Charge-sheet bearing
Charge-sheet No. 03 of 2024, dated 10.02.2024
(Annexure P-2) and the FIR No. 04 of 2022, dated
03.02.2022 registered at P.S. AJAK Baikunthpur,
District Koriya (C.G.) (only up to the extent of
petitioner), in the interest of justice.”
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, who was
posted as an Assistant Sub-Inspector at Police Station Patna,
District Korea (Baikunthpur), and belongs to the Scheduled Caste
community, lodged a written complaint on 03.02.2022 alleging that
co-accused Ravi Singh, a representative of a web news portal
namely “Ghatati Ghatna”, had published a news report and
circulated the same in the “Media Junction” WhatsApp group
containing allegedly objectionable and derogatory remarks against
members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
communities, including the statement that “Adivasis are Chutiya”,
and had also made objectionable comments against the
3
Superintendent of Police, who also belongs to the Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. It was further alleged that Ravi
Singh had fabricated and published a WhatsApp chat by using the
complainant’s photograph, despite the complainant never having
sent such messages, thereby intending to tarnish his reputation and
insult the dignity of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
communities. On the basis of the said complaint, Crime No. 04/2022
was registered at Police Station Baikunthpur. During investigation,
the police recorded the statements of several witnesses, including
Akhilesh Patwa, Kavita Prajapati and Durga Sahu, on the basis of
which the present petitioner, Siyaram Sahu, was also implicated as
an accused. On 24.03.2023, the investigating agency conducted a
search of the petitioner’s residence and seized, inter alia, empty
mobile phone boxes, a broken mobile cover and the SIM card
allegedly connected with the commission of the offence, following
which the petitioner was arrested. Upon completion of the
investigation, Charge-sheet No. 03/2024 dated 10.02.2024 was filed
against the petitioner and the co-accused for offences punishable
under Sections 193, 419, 469, 471 and 201 of the Indian Penal
Code, Sections 3(1)(d) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Sections
66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The learned
Special Judge (Atrocities Act), Baikunthpur, thereafter took
cognizance of the offences and, by order dated 22.05.2026, framed
charges against the petitioner and the other accused persons. The
petitioner, who had earlier been released on regular bail, had also
4
moved an application for discharge, which came to be rejected on
20.11.2025, and further applications seeking production of the
seized SIM card and certain documents under the Right to
Information Act were also rejected or remained unanswered.
Aggrieved by the order framing charges and the continuation of the
criminal proceedings, the petitioner has preferred the present
petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order
dated 22.05.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Koriya (Baikunthpur), framing charges
against the petitioner, as well as the consequential FIR and charge-
sheet, are wholly arbitrary, illegal and liable to be quashed as they
are not supported by any legally admissible or cogent evidence. It is
contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated solely on
the basis of the statements of interested witnesses, despite there
being no material connecting him with the alleged offence. It is
further submitted that although the prosecution claims to have
seized SIM No. 7049646355 from the possession of the petitioner,
the records obtained under the Right to Information Act clearly
reveal that no such SIM card was ever entered in the seizure
register, thereby completely falsifying the prosecution case. Learned
counsel further argues that the said SIM card admittedly stood
registered in the name of one Akhilesh Patwa, who has not been
arrayed as an accused, and significant discrepancies exist regarding
the alleged seizure and subsequent replacement of the SIM on the
very same day, creating a serious doubt about the authenticity of the
5
investigation and the chain of custody. It is also submitted that the
petitioner repeatedly sought production of the Customer Application
Form (CAF) and other relevant records under the Right to
Information Act, but the authorities deliberately withheld the same,
thereby depriving the petitioner of material evidence necessary for
his defence. It is further contended that the petitioner was arrested
without issuance of notice under Section 41A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, despite the offences being punishable with
imprisonment of less than seven years, in complete violation of the
law laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of
Bihar, and that the mandatory safeguards governing arrest and
detention prescribed in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal were also
not complied with. According to the learned counsel, even a plain
reading of the FIR does not disclose the commission of any
cognizable offence by the present petitioner, and the material
collected during investigation, even if accepted in its entirety, fails to
establish the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. It is,
therefore, submitted that the continuation of the criminal
proceedings against the petitioner amounts to a gross abuse of the
process of law and warrants interference by this Court in exercise of
its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and supports
the impugned order framing charges as well as the continuation of
the criminal proceedings. It is submitted that the investigation has
been conducted in accordance with law and, upon completion
thereof, sufficient material was collected to establish a prima facie
6
case against the petitioner. Learned State counsel contends that the
petitioner was implicated not merely on the basis of the statements
of witnesses but also on the basis of the material collected during
investigation, including documentary and electronic evidence, which,
according to the prosecution, discloses his involvement in the
commission of the alleged offences. It is further submitted that the
learned Special Judge, upon considering the police report and the
material accompanying the charge-sheet, rightly found sufficient
grounds for presuming that the petitioner had committed the
offences alleged and, accordingly, framed charges. At the stage of
framing of charge, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous
appreciation of the evidence or determine its admissibility or
probative value, as such issues are matters for trial.
6. Learned State counsel further submits that the contentions
advanced by the petitioner regarding the alleged non-seizure of the
SIM card, discrepancies in the seizure proceedings, ownership and
use of the SIM, non-production of the Customer Application Form
(CAF), violation of the provisions relating to arrest, non-compliance
with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court, and other
procedural irregularities raise disputed questions of fact which
cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the
BNSS, 2023. It is argued that these are matters requiring
appreciation of evidence and examination of witnesses during trial. It
is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order framing charges
does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity
warranting interference by this Court and that the petition, being
7
devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents appended with petition.
8. 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.).
9. 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 (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
8
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.
10. 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 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.
9
11. 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.
12. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, this Court finds
that the allegations contained in the First Information Report, the
statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation, the
documents collected by the investigating agency and the material
accompanying the charge-sheet, if taken at their face value, prima
facie disclose the commission of offences for which the petitioner
has been charge-sheeted. At this stage, the Court is not required to
meticulously examine the evidentiary value of the material collected
during investigation or to record a finding regarding the guilt or
innocence of the accused. The contentions raised on behalf of the
petitioner regarding the alleged non-seizure of SIM No.
7049646355, discrepancies in the seizure proceedings, change of
the SIM card, non-production of the Customer Application Form
(CAF), alleged violation of the provisions governing arrest, non-
compliance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court, and
10
the reliability of the statements of witnesses are all disputed
questions of fact which necessarily require appreciation of evidence
during the course of trial. Such issues cannot be adjudicated in
proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, by conducting a
roving enquiry or a mini trial.
13. The submission that the petitioner has been falsely implicated
merely because the SIM card was registered in the name of another
person also cannot be accepted at this stage. The prosecution case
is founded upon the statements of witnesses as well as other
material collected during investigation, which, according to the
investigating agency, establishes the involvement of the petitioner in
the commission of the alleged offences. Whether the prosecution
ultimately succeeds in proving such allegations beyond reasonable
doubt is a matter to be determined by the learned trial Court upon
appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties. Likewise, the
effect of the documents obtained by the petitioner under the Right to
Information Act and the alleged inconsistencies in the investigation
are matters of defence, the evidentiary value whereof can only be
examined during trial and not while exercising the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court.
14. Insofar as the challenge to the order framing charge dated
22.05.2026 is concerned, it is well settled that at the stage of
framing of charge, the Court is only required to ascertain whether
there exists sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has
committed the offence alleged. The Court is not expected to
11
meticulously weigh the evidence as if conducting the trial itself.
Having considered the material placed before the learned Special
Judge, this Court is unable to hold that the impugned order suffers
from any patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting
interference under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023.
15. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
present case does not fall within any of the exceptional categories
warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction for quashing the FIR,
charge-sheet, order framing charge or the consequential criminal
proceedings.
16. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is
hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Manpreet
