1 2025:CGHC:8810-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 812 of 2018 1 - Ashish Subal Chandra Adhikari S/o Shri Subal Chandra Adhikari Aged About 59 Years Presently Posted As Chief Manager(Pers.), J. K. Rope Ways Area G. T. Road, Kajora More, P. O. Kajoragram, Distt. Burdwan, West Bengal, The Then Senior Manage (Pers.), / Area Personnel Manager (Eisno 90137498) Secl Korba Area Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Central Bureau of Investigation Through Anti Corruption Bureau, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate along with Shri Rohishek Verma, Advocates. For Respondent : Shri B.Gopa Kumar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 20.02.2025 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1. The present petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of order dated 31.07.2017 passed by the Special Judge (CBI) in Special Sessions Case No.195 of 2017, charge Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.02.21 18:31:42 +0530 2 sheet dated 31.07.2017 including FIR dated 13.11.2014 as also for quashing the entire proceeding against the petitioner pending before the Special Judge, CBI, Raipur for the offence under Sections 109,420,467,468,471,477A & 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the PC Act). 2. Brief facts of the case are that, on a written complaint made by P. Subrahmanyam, Senior Manager (Finance/Vigilance), Vigilance Department, SECL, Bilaspur, Case No.RC1242014A0006 was registered by the CBI, Ante Corruption Bureau, Chhattisgarh, on 13.11.2014 against the present petitioner amongst other for the offence under section 120-B, 420 of IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act. In the FIR It was alleged that M/s Dhruv Guards Pvt. Ltd., Directorate General Resettlement (DGR) sponsored Security Agency, was awarded a contract for deployment of security personnel in SECL, Korba for providing security of the SECL Installations. As per the contract, M/s Dhruv Guards Pvt. Ltd. was required to ensure minimum of 90% Ex-servicemen and rest civilian in deployment of security personnel to avail the Coalfield Allowances @24% and Service Charge @ 14%. In the event of failure to deploy the minimum percentage of Ex-servicemen, the Coalfield Allowance and Service Charges to be paid to the Security Agency was to be reduced to zero percent and six percent respectively. M/s Dhruv Guards Pvt. Ltd. claimed Coalfield Allowances @24% and Service Charge @14%, whereas, in the enquiry conducted by the SECL, it was found that the firm did not maintain the required minimum percentage of Ex-servicemen to claim 3 the Coalfield Allowances @ 24% and Service Charge @ 14%. A false certificate of one Umesh Kumar Gupta, Sr. Manager, SECL, Korba showing minimum Ex Service Man ratio in the deployment made the said firm eligible for claiming the higher rates of Coalfield Allowance which otherwise could have been denied. The allegations against the petitioner amongst other was that they did not check the monthly attendance sheet with the falsified bank acquaintance roll and to raise the issue of false deployment of Ex Service Man. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed on 31.07.2017 against the petitioner and other erring officials for the offence under Sections 109, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A, 120-B of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 before the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Raipur. 3. The Special Judge took cognizance of the charge-sheet filed by the CBI on 31.07.2017 and framed charges against the accused petitioner along with other accused persons for the offence under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 471, 477-A of IPC and 13 (2) r/w. 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 on 20.08.2018. Hence this petition seeking quashment of entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner. 4. We have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. It transpires from the order sheet that no interim order has been passed in favour of the petitioner in the present matter. Even otherwise, on a pointed query being made with respect to status of trial, the counsel for respondent-CBI fairly submits that out of 47 witnesses 33 witnesses 4 have already been examined before the trial court. This fact is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. 6. In view of above, since trial is in progress, we are not inclined to interfere with the matter at this belated stage. The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder