1 2025:CGHC:33169-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2222 of 2025 Imdad Khan S/o Niyamat Khan Aged About 58 Years R/o Musalmaan Para, P.S. Dharsiwa Tehsil And District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Dharsiwa, District- Raipur C.G. 2 - Devesh Devdas S/o Rajesh Devdas Aged About 35 Years R/o Collectorate , Food Department, Tehsil And District- Raipur C.G. 3 - Superintendent Of Police, Office of Superintendent of Police, District- Raipur C.G. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sameer Oraon, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 & 3 : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16.07.2025 1 Heard Mr. Sameer Oraon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 and 3. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.07.17 10:44:56 +0530 2 2 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahita, 2023 and in exercise thereof admit the petition and after hearing the parties in the matter, be pleased to set aside/quash the First Information Report dated 14 12 2024 having crime no 684/2024 registered under section 3 & 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 408 & 34 of Indian Penal Code (Section 316 & 3(5) of BNS), registered at Police Station-Dharsiwa, Raipur (Annexure P-1) and be please to quash the final report dated 4.04.2025 and set aside order dated 11.4.2025 of learned Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class in Criminal Case no. 13974/2025 taking & 3(5) cognizance under Section 408 & 34 of IPC (316 of BNS) and Section 3 & 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 on such terms as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3 Brief facts of the case, are that, the petitioner was initially appointed as a Peon in 2006 and subsequently promoted as a Clerk on 15.04.2013 in Krishak Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Dharsiwa. He has been performing his duties sincerely since then. The controversy arose when Food Inspector (Respondent No. 2) lodged a complaint on 14.12.2024 alleging financial and stock 3 irregularities in the Public Distribution System (PDS) managed by the society. It was alleged that from May 2016 to February 2022 and October 2022 to March 2024, there was a significant shortage of rice, sugar, and salt stocks, amounting to an alleged loss of Rs. 82,20,865/-. Based on this, RRC proceedings for recovery were initiated against the society’s management. Subsequently, an FIR was registered under Sections 408 IPC, Sections 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and Chhattisgarh Public Distribution Control Order, 2016. The petitioner was named as an accused, portraying him as the Manager, despite the fact that the actual Manager during most of the relevant period was Omprakash Sharma (till 2021), and thereafter Bhola Prasad Soni (from 2022). The petitioner had only briefly held charge as Manager for about a year after Sharma’s death. The petitioner contends that: • He was never issued any notice during the enquiry nor was he part of the RRC proceedings. • His role was limited to depositing government funds, which he duly performed. • No evidence suggests his involvement in stock man- agement or misappropriation. • He was wrongly named in the FIR to shield the ac- tual responsible officers. 4 The petitioner sought for quashing of FIR and proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) / Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’), claiming misuse of process, lack of prima 4 facie case, and non-compliance with procedural requirements under the Essential Commodities Act. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the society and was never entrusted with the duty of stock maintenance, distribution, or any managerial function. His sole responsibility was to deposit the government funds, which he duly performed. The bank statements (Annexure P-8) clearly reflect that all government dues were regularly deposited by the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has been wrongly portrayed as the Manager in the FIR, whereas the record itself shows that Omprakash Sharma was the Manager from 2016 till his death in 2021, and thereafter Bhola Prasad Soni was appointed as Manager from June 2022 onwards. The appointment orders and death certificate are placed on record (Annexures P-6 and P-7). The petitioner only held temporary charge for a brief period but had no authority over stock management. It has been submitted that during the enquiry and RRC proceedings, no notice was ever issued to the petitioner, nor was he made a party to the recovery proceedings. Even the enquiry reports do not attribute any liability to the petitioner. The FIR has been filed arbitrarily and maliciously to shield the actual responsible officers, including the manager and president of the society. It is further submitted that the FIR lacks necessary ingredients to constitute offences under Section 408 IPC (or Section 316 BNS), as there is no entrustment of property to the 5 petitioner nor any dishonest intention on his part. Similarly, Section 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is not attracted because the petitioner was never in charge of the stock or its distribution. It has been argued that no sanction as required under Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act was obtained and no valid report by any public servant has been filed to constitute an offence under the Act. Hence, the cognizance taken by the Trial Court is void ab initio and without jurisdiction. It is contended that the FIR was lodged only to save the real culprits and wrongly implicate the petitioner, despite the fact that his duties were clerical in nature and he had no involvement in the alleged misappropriation or stock shortage. It is further argued that no complaint was ever received from any ration card holder regarding non-distribution of ration. The panchayat enquiry report also states that distribution was regularly carried out and there was no grievance from the public (Annexure P-9). He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P. 2023 SCC Online SC 951 to submit that the Court, while exercising powers under Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC, can look beyond the FIR and take into account the entire circumstances and material to prevent abuse of process of law and secure the ends of justice. It is lastly submitted that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner despite absence of any material implicating him would amount to a gross abuse of process of law, causing unnecessary 6 harassment to the petitioner who is merely a clerk. As such, the petition be allowed. 6 On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of petitioner and submits that when the police found that a cognizable offence is prima facie made out, the FIR was registered and after investigation, charge sheet has also been filed and the criminal case is pending consideration before the learned trial Court. The petitioners have failed to make out any ground in the entire petition which can attract the interference of this Court for quashing the FIR. Even otherwise, it has been reiterated by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions that the Courts should be reluctant to interfere with the criminal proceedings if prima facie its discloses commission of cognizable offence. 7 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned FIR. 8 The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the 7 accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’). 9 In the well celebrated judgment of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Apex Court held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Guidelines are as follows:- “(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety to do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 156(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no 8 investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can every reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 10 In case of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill, (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Apex Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was 9 held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 11 In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315, the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 of the CrPC is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 CrPC, only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 12 Keeping in view the aforesaid law and considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we 10 are of the considered view that the submissions raised by learned counsel for petitioner relate to the questions of fact and thus, cannot be examined by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC The appreciation of evidence or the reliability of the allegations cannot be examined at this stage. 13 From the above stated case laws, it is apparent that the above stated contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be examined by this Court. The adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC In view of the material on record, it cannot be held that the impugned criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with malafide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. FIR or criminal proceedings can be quashed only in accordance with parameters laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. 14 Upon careful consideration of the facts of the case, the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, and upon perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the view that the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage. 15 From the record, it is evident that the allegations pertain to serious 11 financial irregularities and shortage of essential commodities in the public distribution system, involving substantial quantities of rice, sugar, and salt over several years. Although the petitioner claims to have been working only as a clerk and not entrusted with the management of the fair price shop or with maintaining stock, these are matters of factual dispute which cannot be adjudicated conclusively in proceedings under Section 528 of BNSS. 16 The materials collected during investigation, including the inspection reports, the audit findings, and the subsequent recovery proceedings, indicate that stock irregularities occurred during the period when the petitioner was given charge as manager for a year, and later while he was working in the society. Whether the petitioner had any active involvement or not, and whether he had knowledge of the irregularities, are issues which require appreciation of evidence during trial and cannot be determined in a summary proceeding under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 17 This Court is also conscious of the settled legal position that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS, the Court should not undertake a detailed examination of the evidence or conduct a roving inquiry into disputed questions of fact. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) and recently in Mohammad Wajid (supra), the power to quash 12 criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly, and only in cases where the FIR or the complaint does not disclose any cognizable offence even on its face. 18 In the present case, the FIR discloses offences punishable under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 408 of IPC (or Section 316 BNS). The question of whether the petitioner was in charge of stock management or whether he acted with dishonest intent cannot be answered without trial. 19 Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present petition seeking quashing of the FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom. The petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu