Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:11937-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 904 of 2025 Anuj Pandey S/o Lt. Gulab Shankar Pandey Aged About 25 Years R/o Sakin- Palikaranpur, Pandeypur, Chhibaiya, Thana- Sarayinayat, District Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh. L.A. Balaji Coal Enterprises, Champa, Thana Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. (Accused) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2. Superintendent of Police Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3. Ajay Behra S/o Laxmi Prasad Behra Aged About 23 Years R/o Teram, P.S. Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. (Complainant) ...Respondent(s) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.03.12 10:25:04 +0530 For Petitioner For Respondents/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Anurag Jha and Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, Advocates. Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, Panel Lawyer. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 11.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anurag Jha and Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be allow this petition and set aside/quash FIR No. 0290 of 2023. Further it is also requested to set aside/quash the order dated 05.11.2024 in Case No. 72 of 2023, by Additional Session Judge, against the petitioner/accused in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that being aggrieved by the manner in which the FIR bearing Crime No. 290 of 2023 Police Station Gharghoda for the offences punishable under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has been registered against the petitioner wherein upon an “head on collision between the two vehicles” (Truck & Bus) and the Bus driver (School Bus), who himself was not having driving license (batch) along with the School Administration (Liable for the conduct) and 3 also the order for framing charges against the petitioner dated 22.10.2024 in the Trial Case No. 72 of 2023. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is originally resident of Prayagraj (Uttar Pradesh) and is a member of an extremely poor family living below the poverty line. The petitioner’s father has passed away. The petitioner reached District Raigarh (C.G.) in search of livelihood, where he was working with Shri Vinay Agarwal’s Balaji Coal Enterprises. On the date of the accident, the petitioner was working as helper in the aforesaid truck and later the petitioner has been framed as driver of the truck. Whereas only to save the skin of the original culprits the petitioner en-roped in false and fabricated story developed by the Police. He also submits that the learned trial Court has given its order after looking at the entire matter from one- sided perspective. The respondent No. 2/complainant has clearly written in his complaint that his father, Laxmi Behera used to drive a school bus and used to drive children in the school bus. While on 19.07.2023 at 2.15 p.m., the respondent No. 2 came to know about a road accident when his brother Ram Behera was driving a bus full of children. After the accident, he was taken to the hospital by ambulance. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that Police did not seize any driving license from school bus driver Ram Behera. The respondent No. 2 himself wrote in the FIR that the bus was being driven by his brother Ram Behera, after which 30-35 children got injured in the accident. The respondent No. 2 has written in his complaint that the driver of the vehicle with which the bus met with an accident, Anuj Kumar Pandey, was also seriously injured in the accident. The driver flew away from the truck and 4 as such, the entire liability has been fastened upon the head of the petitioner. He further states that according to the FIR, accused Anuj Kumar Pandey was made driver of the trailer No. CG 11BF 9910. The vehicle belongs to Mr. Vinay Agarwal, Balaji Coal Enterprises. The FIR was filed only mentioning the subject of the accident. The two drivers were not related to each other in any way. Despite this, the FIR was filed under Section 308 of the IPC in a matter of road accidents (head on collision). This act was done with the sole intention of getting a single petitioner convicted under serious sections. 6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Police only to safeguard the powerful persons such as the School “St. Ann’s Public School Management” and Vinay Agarwal “Balaji Coal Enterprises” along with the driver of the bus, namely, Ram Behera had en-roped falsely the petitioner. He also contended that the final report/charge-sheet has been filed before the learned trial Court. It is evident from the charge-sheet itself that there is no eye witness to the case whereas it was an busy road, but the Investigating OfÏcer has deliberately conducted such investigation to safeguard the main culprits from the case. He would submit that the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in framing charges against the petitioner under Sections 308, 304-II of the IPC without going into the evidence and facts and passed an order which is a failure of justice. He further submits that the learned trial Court by the order dated 05.11.2024 has given a reasoning that it has a large number of pendency, therefore, held that the prima facie offence is disclosed against the petitioner, hence, the trial Court summoned the petitioner for being present for framing of charges for the 5 offence in question. He also stated that the petitioner is entitled for a fair trial in the matter, for which he has approached this Court. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as the trial against the petitioner is pending and trial Court summoned the petitioner for framing of charges and there is no materials on record to the show that the petitioner’s right to fair trial is being prejudiced and observations made by the trial Court that it has the large pendency cannot be a ground for quashing the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed on this ground alone. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan