1 2025:CGHC:27958-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1972 of 2025 Sanjay Shukla S/o Shri Martanda Shukla Aged About 46 Years (Correct Name Is Sanjay Kumar Shukla), Teacher, Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Charcha, Resident Of Vivekanand Colony, Charcha, P.S.H. - Charcha, Tahsil Baikunthpur District Korea (Chhattisgarh),...(Accused) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.H. - Charcha, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea (Chhattisgarh),...(Complainant) 2 - Shri Ramsagar Singh S/o Shri Ramnayan Singh Aged About 53 Years Present Cashier, Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Charcha, R/o Maharana Pratap Colony, Quarter No. 1530, Thana Charcha, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.),...(Informant) Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Varma and Mr. Gajendra Kumar Sahu, Advocates For Respondent/State : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.06.27 10:46:16 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 26/06/2025 1. The instant CRMP has been filed with the following reliefs:- “1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash the FIR No. 282/2024 dated 09.12.2024 U/s 408, 420, 467, 468, and 120(b) of IPC of Police Station House Charcha District Korea (C.G.) against the petitioner/accused. 2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash its complete charge sheet, cognizance taken by the learned trial court dated 05.03.2025 in Criminal Case no. 398/2025 State Vs. Abhijeet Pradhan and 2 others U/s 408, 420, 467, 468, and 120(b) of IPC against the petitioner/accused. 3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be quash the framing of charge by learned trial Court dated 19.03.2025 U/s 420, read with 34, 120(b), 467, 468, 408 of IPC and, dismissal of Criminal Revision No. 07/2025 Sanjay Shukla Vs. State, dismissed by the ASJ Baikunthpur, Korea on 06.05.2025 and entire proceeding pending before the learned C.J.M. Baikunthpur, against the petitioner/accused.” 2. Facts of the case are that a written complaint has been filed by the informant Ramsagar Singh Cashier of the Saraswati Shishu Mandir Higher Secondary School, Charcha against the main accused ‘Abhijeet Pradhan’ (not against the petitioner/accused), one enquiry was made in the school in which it was found that 3 between 28.05.2019 to 31.03.2023 embezzlement of Rs. 28,08,490/- in entries of school fees was committed. It was also alleged in complaint that this embezzlement was done by the Clerk/Accountant/Computer Operator Abhijeet Pradhan of the School with the help of other persons. They entered the monthly fees, registered excess amount and less amount was deposited in the Bank Account of Vidyalaya Samiti and the receipt given to the guardian shows the amount given by them but the carbon copy of the receipt less amount was entered in the bank account. It is also alleged in the complaint after information of embezzlement the show cause notice is given to the Principal of the school and looking to his reply, it appears, that Abhijeet Pradhan with the help of other persons embezzled the amount. it is also alleged in complaint that earlier Abhijeet Pradhan is admitted the embezzlement of Rs.6,56,040/- in the session 2020-2021 and also admitted to deposit that amount in the Bank Account of the school and given cheque but 2 cheques were dishonoured. The fee amount of last 5 years was enquired and found embezzlement of Rs.28,08,490/-. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complainant has lodged the FIR on the basis of bald and vague allegations against the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner and other co-accused person is facing trial and it is also stated that only on the basis of the statement of the co-accused 4 Abhijeet Pradhan who was main accused, the petitioner has been roped in the present matter. Learned counsel further submits that statement of the petitioner was recorded on 17/01/2025 and it is also stated that a receipt book has been received at the instance of the petitioner. He would further contend that out of 15 prosecution witnesses, statements of 03 witnesses have been recorded by the trial Court and the trial goes to show that the fees which was being collected by the main accused Abhijeet Pradhan and the petitioner has not played any role to collect any fees etc. He submits that without any cogent evidence, the petitioner being a teacher has been roped in the present case. 4. Per Contra, learned State counsel would oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that the application of the petitioner for discharge has been rejected and the charges have been framed. He further submits that out of 15 prosecution witnesses, statements of 03 witnesses have been recorded which are mentioned in the charge-sheet and at this stage, interference of this Court in the proceedings of the trial Court would hamper the trial. However, he would submit that in the case in hand, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the concerned competent court and hence, FIR cannot be quashed at this juncture. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5 6. Prima-facie, this Court found that there are severe allegations against the petitioner regarding misappropriation and embezzlement of whopping amount of Rs. 28,08,490/- by making incorrect entries in respect of the school fees. It is also evident that they used to excess amount towards the fees from the guardians of the students but in bank accounts they did not deposit the entire amount and while doing this type of acts, they used to manipulate the fees receipts. Thus, it is quite vivid that the petitioner is involved in the present case and the trial is in progress. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and particularly considering the fact that the trial is in progress and the evidence is being recorded, it is not proper for this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner as the evidence is yet to be recorded, as such, this Court does not find any good ground to quash the FIR/ charge sheet or the order framing charge at this stage. However, it is obligatory that the trial be brought to a logical end expeditiously. 8. In view of the above, the instant CRMP is rejected at the motion stage. Sd/- d Sd/-/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S. Bhilwar/ Jyoti