1 2025:CGHC:35362-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 636 of 2023 Ganesh Ram Verma S/o Shri Heeraram Verma Aged About 56 Years R/o Pandarbhatta, Tehsil And District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Food And Civil Supplies, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited, 6th Floor Tower-C, Commercial Complex, C G D, Sector 21, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Collector of Mungeli District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Mungeli District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 5. The Assistant Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Mungeli Tehsil and District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 6. District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari, Sangh Maryadit, Mungeli, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.07.23 19:28:21 +0530 2 7. The SHO Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 8. The President Circular Service Co-Operative Society Limited Pandarbhatta, Registration No. 676, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ...Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 23 .07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Pallav Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “1. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining the present case from the Police Station where the criminal case is registered against the petitioner; 2. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow the present petition and quash the FIR lodged against the petitioner by the respondents.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been employed as Chowkidar with the Paddy Procurement Center Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Pandarbhatta, for Khariff Marketing year 2021- 3 22. The another accused, namely, Ku. Laxmi Verma was a Computer Operator and incharge of the Paddy Procurement Centre of the Pandarbhatta. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the purchase season of Paddy had completed, a physical verification was conducted by the respondent authorities. On verification having been conducted, 3096.30 quintals of paddy were found short of. This quantity caused a loss of Rs. 77,40,750/- to the State Exchequer. He also contended that in the preliminary enquiry conducted by the respondents, prima facie, it was found that the co-accused, Ku. Laxmi Verma was the guilty for the embezzlement and loss to the State Exchequer. He would submit that though the co-accused, Ku. Laxmi Verma had been held liable for the embezzlement of the Paddy, the respondent authorities has been framed the present petitioner in the entire case as accused for no default of his. 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.03.2023 granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to FIR bearing Crime No. 258 of 2022 registered at P.S. City Kotwali, Mungeli. However, petitioner is directed to cooperate in the investigation of the crime registered against him. 6. On query being made about the status of the investigation, the learned State counsel submits that the investigation is still pending. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and from 4 perusal of the impugned FIR, it is apparent that the FIR has been lodged on 02.05.2022 and the petitioner has already been granted interim relief Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.03.2023 as well as the fact that the investigation is in progress, we direct the concerned Superintendent of Police / Senior Superintendent of Police to ensure that the investigation of the present case be concluded expeditiously preferably within a period of 06 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, if already not concluded and submit a Police Report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. (now under Section 193(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) before the competent Court in accordance with law. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to law, if any future cause of action arises. Till then, no coercive steps have been taken against the petitioner. 8. Learned State counsel is directed to furnish a copy of this order to the concerned Superintendent of Police / Senior Superintendent of Police for necessary information and compliance forthwith. 9. With the aforementioned observations/directions, instant petition is disposed off. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan