1 2025:CGHC:47729-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 858 of 2023 Sanjay Kumar Trivedi S/o Shri Badri Vishal Trivedi Aged About 59 Years R/o Near Press Club, Patrakar Bhawan, Naya Para, Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P. S. Kotwali Jagdalpur, Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2. Pitambar Sinha S/o Shri Ram Singh Sinha Aged About 54 Years R/o Qr. No. 56, Uday Nagar, Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ...Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Akash Pandey, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. For Non-applicant No. 2 : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Akash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State as well as Mr. D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel, appearing for non- applicant No. 2. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.09.19 10:32:12 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the impugned FIR No. 68 of 2018 registered by the Police Station Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) to the extent it relates to the applicant in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that at the relevant time, the applicant was posted as Principal, Girls Polytechnic College, Dharampura No. 2, Government Jagdalpur, District Bastar. He further submits that the applicant received a letter dated 04.02.2011 from the Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Project, Raipur (C.G.), directing him to submit an estimate of expenses required for conducting the selection examination for direct recruitment to the posts of Steno-Typist and Data Entry Operator. The process included setting of papers, conduct of the examination, evaluation of answer sheets and preparation of results. Pursuant thereto, the applicant submitted the estimate on 11.02.2011 and also issued directions for conducting the examination, allocating duties to staff vide letter dated 25.02.2011. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the wife of non-applicant No. 2, namely Smt. Parmeshwari Sinha, was one of the candidates for the post of Data Entry Operator. Non-applicant No. 2, being an influential person working in the Public Works Department, Government of Chhattisgarh at Kanker, allegedly misused 3 his influence after his wife failed to secure selection. The examination was duly conducted and the results, along with all relevant documents, were submitted to the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Department, Bastar Division, with due acknowledgment. Dissatisfied with the outcome, non-applicant No. 2 began lodging complaints before several authorities including the Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Project, and the State Backward Class Commission, alleging manipulation of answer sheets. His wife also made representations to the Portfolio Minister, whereupon an enquiry was ordered. A four-member committee was constituted by order dated 10.06.2013. The applicant duly appeared before the Commission on 27.09.2013 and recorded his statement. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the four- member Committee sought a factual report from the applicant, who in turn called for detailed reports from the Head of Department, Modern Office Management, and from the evaluator, Mr. Varun Pandey. Their reports clarified that the irregularities pointed out were only clerical mistakes—such as an invigilator mistakenly obtaining a wrong signature on one candidate’s calculation sheet, subsequently rectified—and differences in formatting of answer sheets. Importantly, marks awarded were different and no manipulation was found. The applicant, after forwarding these reports with his own findings on 03.12.2013, pointed out that over 500 answer sheets were evaluated in a single day and minor errors were bound to occur, but no criminality could be attributed. He further stated that the Enquiry Committee, after a thorough examination, found no mala fides in the selection process, though it 4 recommended departmental action against certain staff members. Its report was accepted by the State Backward Class Commission. Thereafter, wife of non-applicant No. 2, namely, Smt. Parmeshwari Sinha filed writ petition bearing WPS No. 1808/2014, but withdrew the same with liberty to pursue her complaint. She later filed WPS No.3137/2015, seeking appointment on the basis of the enquiry report. That writ petition is pending adjudication, wherein the State Government has already clarified that she was placed only in the waiting list and that no appointment could be made after expiry of the stipulated period. Despite the above, non-applicant No. 2 continued to pressurize authorities and eventually lodged the impugned FIR with Police Station Kotwali, Jagdalpur. The police, without conducting any preliminary enquiry, straightaway registered the FIR against the applicant, the evaluator, and a selected candidate. It is submitted that subsequently, by exerting political pressure, non-applicant No. 2 succeeded in securing an appointment order dated 23.08.2018 in favour of his wife. Meanwhile, the selected candidate Aruna Patel’s services were terminated, though this Court granted her interim protection on 24.09.2018. The police investigation continues, though multiple departmental enquiries have already exonerated the applicant’s role. It is, therefore, argued that the prosecution is a result of malice and harassment, as the applicant was never a member of the selection committee, but only facilitated conduct of the examination. Even accepting the prosecution case on its face value, no offence is made out against the applicant. 5 6. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for non- applicant No. 2 oppose submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 7. On a specific query, it is fairly admitted by learned counsel for non-applicant No. 2 that no return/reply has been filed till date, though the petition has been pending since 2023. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The material on record reveals that multiple enquiries have already been conducted and no mala fide is attributed to the applicant. He was not part of the selection committee and merely discharged his administrative duties of facilitating conduct of the examination. The entire basis of the FIR stems from the grievance of non-applicant No. 2 regarding non-selection of his wife, which cannot be the foundation of criminal prosecution. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, has enumerated categories of cases where the inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) can be exercised to quash proceedings, particularly where the allegations do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence or where the proceedings manifestly amount to abuse of the process of law. 11. Applying the aforesaid principle to the present case, it is evident that even if the allegations are taken at their face value, no prima facie 6 offence is made out against the applicant. Continuation of the proceedings would amount to harassment and abuse of the process of law. 12. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 68 of 2018 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G) on 21.02.2018 against the applicant is hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan