1 2025:CGHC:35321-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 416 of 2025 Sudhir Kumar Manek S/o Late Madhukant Jee Manek Aged About 50 Years R/o Gurukripa Raipur Naka, G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon C.G. 2 - Zila Vanopaj Sahkari Sangh Maryadit (Rajnandgaon) Through Its Managing Director, Office Of The Managing Director, Zila Vanopaj Sahkari Sangh Maryadit, Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr.Kshitij Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1-State : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate 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.Kshitij Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1/State. BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.07.24 17:29:03 +0530 2 2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with following prayer: “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/direction/order to the respondent authorities to produce entire records pertaining to the instant case; 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/direction/order of appropriate nature quashing the impugned FIR No. No.305/2025. Dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) registered at P.S. Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 316(2), 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023; 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/direction/order, quashing any consequential action/proceeding pursuant to the impugned FIR. 10.4 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s) as it may deem fit.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that a NIT was issued for collection and sale of Tendu Patta for the year 2022 vide notice dated 08.11.2021. The petitioner participated in the said NIT and emerged as a successful bidder for allotment of lot No. 64B, Bijapur (C.G.), the formal agreement was executed between the parties vide agreement dated 15.03.2022. Pursuant to the said agreement, the petitioner was to deposit the sale consideration in 04 installments, which was to paid on 05.10.2022, 23.12.2022, 06.01.2023 and the last installment was to be paid by 22.02.2023. The lifting and transportation of the Tendu Patta could only be done after issuance of the transport permit by the concerned authority, however, there was considerable delay in this regard, which led to the delay in execution of the work. Also the permission for weighing & tightening was issued only on 27.09.2022. Because of the considerable delay attributable only to the authorities and the petitioner is 3 not to be blamed at all. There was a substantial delay in execution of the work, which adversely affected the business of the petitioner and consequently the petitioner could not make the payment of the sale consideration as per the agreement. 4. Since the petitioner defaulted in payment of the sale consideration per the agreement, the agreement was terminated and the petitioner was also blacklisted for 05 years vide order dated 03.01.2023. The custody of the forest produce / Tendu Patta in the godown was locked and the keys were to be kept in duplicate, one with the bidder and another with the Chief Warehouse In-charge. However in the instant case the keys were always with the Respondent Department or the Warehouse In-charge. Also a panchnama was drawn in this regard, wherein it has been categorically recorded that the entire 7348 sacks of Tendu Patta pertaining to the Lot 64B, Bhairamgarh were stored in the said Warehouse. It has further been recorded in the said Panchanama that after weighing and tightening of the Tendu Patta no removal of any produce was done by the bidder. 5. The above chronology of facts would conclusively establish that the entire quantity of the Tendu Patta stored in the subject Warehouse was intact as per the last physical verification and the keys to the said Warehouse was always with the concerned Warehouse Incharge. The said factum has been duly recorded in the panchnama drawn by the officers of the department. 6. It appears that a newspaper item was published by the editor Rajesh Chouthwani in the newspaper daily "Neelganga", wherein it was alleged that there was some mismanagement with the Warehouse and acting on the said news item an inspection committee was constituted by the Managing Director, vide order dated 04.05.2023, to be chaired by 4 Shivendra K. Sahu, Range Officer. It is categorically submitted that the petitioner was never noticed / summoned or any communication in this regard was ever made to the petitioner. However, on the basis of some enquiry report it was reported that there was a deficit of 2669 Sacks of Tendu Patta and also that the good quality produce has been replaced by inferior produce. Therefore, disciplinary action was recommended against all the delinquent officers and also criminal action was directed to be initiated against them. The petitioner also attempted to secure those documents through R.T.I., however of no avail. Thus, till date the petitioner has not been provided with the enquiry report and the material collected in the said enquiry/inspection. It is only on the basis of the said enquiry /inspection report, the impugned FIR has been registered against the petitioner, which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Hence this petition 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an admitted fact that after the termination of the agreement of the petitioner vide order dated 03.01.2023, panchnama was drawn on 23.02.2023, 23.03.2023 and also on 06.04.2023, wherein it has been categorically recorded that after the physical verification the quantity of the stored Tendu Patta in the Warehouse w.r.t. lot No. 64B /Bhairamgarh, Forest Division Bijapur was intact and as per record. Moreover, it has also been categorically recorded that the keys of the Warehouse has always been with the concerned Warehouse Incharge and furthermore, the petitioner has never accessed the warehouse after completing the weighing & tightening of the produce. He further submits that the impugned F.I.R. records the date of occurrence from 26.05.2022 to 27.03.2025 although the permission for transportation was issued only in June'22. Therefore, on the face of it it is clear that the impugned F.I.R. has been registered 5 recklessly without conducting any preliminary enquiry. He also submits that the perusal of the F.I.R. would itself reveal except misappropriation of the stored Tendu Patta from the the omnibus allegation period 26.05.2022 to 27.03.2025, no any specific instance have been recorded to show that there was any involvement of the petitioner. Moreso, when it is specifically recorded in the aforesaid panchnama drawn on different dates, wherein no deficit was ever found. It is categorically submitted in the entire enquiry, it has been specifically recorded that the keys of the godown was always with the warehouse incharge / office of the respondent. Hence if there is no entrustment of the product in the exclusive possession / dominion of the petitioner, question of criminal breach of trust / misappropriation does not arise. Thus, the very initiation, continuation and prosecution of the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. He contended that the very ingredient is necessary to constitute the offence under Section 316(2) and 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 are not spelled out against the petitioner. Since as per the allegations contained in the F.I.R. even if it is taken on its face value, it cannot be said that the petitioner had any dominion over the subject property (Tendu Patta). Thus, there being no entrustment of the property with the petitioner, the question of misappropriation does not arise at all. As such, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed. 8. On the other hand, Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State opposing the prayer of the petitioner submits that the FIR prima facie discloses the cognizable offence. As such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned FIR produced by the learned 6 State counsel. 10. From perusal of the FIR, it appears that an application was submitted by complainant Smt. Pramila Jureshia, who is the Chief Warehouse Incharge at Rajnandgaon District Union, Rajnandgaon. The application pertained to the theft of high-quality tendu leaves and replacement with old, waste, and substandard tendu leaves from the stock of tendu leaves of Forest Division Bijapur, Lot No. 64B, Samiti Bhairamgarh, stored at Gurukripa Godown, Rajnandgaon. A committee was constituted to investigate the matter and subsequently, a First Information Report (FIR) was to be registered. The application was investigated and the statements of the complainant and members of the constituted committee were recorded. The documents submitted were also reviewed. The investigation revealed that between 26.05.2022 to 27.03.2025, high-quality tendu leaves were allegedly removed and replaced with old, waste and substandard tendu leaves from the stock of tendu leaves of Forest Division Bijapur, Lot No. 64B, Samiti Bhairamgarh, stored at Gurukripa Godown, Rajnandgaon. The investigation further revealed that out of total stored quantity of 7348 sacks, only 4679 sacks were found, and a shortage of 2669 sacks was detected, resulting in a loss of ₹93,34,487/- to the government. 11. 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 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 Cr.P.C. 12. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and 7 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 Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 13. Keeping in view the aforesaid law and considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the contents of the FIR and material available on record, we are of the considered view that the submissions raised by learned counsel for petitioner relate to the questions of fact, and thus, can not be examined by this Court at this stage. 14. In the instant case, from perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. 15. In view of aforesaid, the petition lacks merit and thus, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Bablu