Facts
Following the death of Shivkumar Ghritalhare on 14.11.2023, initial reports suggested a snakebite.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 4However, medical records from CIMS Bilaspur indicated the cause of death was cardiac/respiratory failure due to unknown poison and alcohol intoxication.
Source reference: p. 4-5, para. 4An FIR (Crime No. 194/2025) was registered alleging a conspiracy to falsely claim government compensation by portraying the death as a snakebite.
Source reference: no citationPetitioner Kamta Sahu (an advocate) was accused of misleading the family to file a fake claim for a share of the compensation.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 6Petitioner Dr. Priyanka Soni (a forensic expert) was accused of recording "snake bite" as the cause of death despite hospital records indicating poisoning.
Source reference: p. 6-7, para. 7Following a charge sheet filed on 06.07.2025, the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Bilha, took cognizance on 08.07.2025.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 5Issues
1. Whether the allegations in the FIR and charge-sheet, taken at face value, prima facie constitute cognizable offences under Sections 420, 511, 120-B, 467, and 468 of the IPC.
Source reference: p. 8-9, para. 10-122. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) to quash the criminal proceedings at the trial stage.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 12Law Applied
The Court applied the settled legal principles governing the quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC), asserting that such power must be used sparingly and only in exceptional cases where the FIR/complaint fails to disclose a cognizable offence.
Source reference: p. 8, para. 10The court referenced the specific IPC provisions regarding cheating (Sec. 420), attempt to commit offences (Sec. 511), criminal conspiracy (Sec. 120-B), and forgery of valuable security/documents (Sec. 467, 468).
Source reference: p. 9, para. 13The court also noted the standard that meticulous appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the quashing stage.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 12Reasoning
The Court determined that the investigation and the resulting charge sheet disclosed sufficient material to indicate the commission of cognizable offences.
Source reference: p. 8, para. 12The Court noted that the prosecution brought forth evidence alleging the manipulation of medical records and the projection of a false cause of death to secure pecuniary gain through a fraudulent compensation claim.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 12Regarding Petitioner Sahu's defense of "professional advice" and Petitioner Dr. Soni's defense of "professional opinion," the Court held that because the investigation suggested a conspiracy to misrepresent facts, the matter required trial.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 12The Court emphasized that it cannot evaluate the evidentiary value of the documents at this juncture, and since the allegations prima facie made out a case, the continuation of the prosecution did not constitute an abuse of process.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 12Holding
The Court dismissed both petitions, refusing to quash the FIR, charge sheet, or the cognizance order dated 08.07.2025.
The trial in Criminal Case No. 1996/2025 was ordered to proceed.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 13Original Court PDF
KAMTA SAHUvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in