1 2025:CGHC:26734-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2374 of 2023 Aishwarya Kumar S/o Late Buddhi Ram Aged About 34 Years R/o Village And Post Salkhan, District- Sonebhadra, Uttar Pradesh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Balauda, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Harish R/o Balauda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), C/o The Station House Officer, Police Station Balauda, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Prashant R/o Balauda, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), C/o The Station House Officer, Police Station Balauda, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anukul Biswas, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 23/06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Anukul Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1. None appears for the other respondents. 2 2. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.), the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No. 212/2020 registered at Police Station, Balauda, District Janjgir-Champa, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered against the petitioner as well as two other co-accused. 3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner was posted as Office Assistant in Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Branch Pantora, District Janjgir Champa in the year 2015-2016. The petitioner is alleged to have made unauthorised withdrawal of Rs. 46,000/- from various accounts of the bank with the help of two co- accused persons namely the respondents No. 2 and 3. The amount of loan was said to be embezzled by the petitioner by filing withdrawal forms and putting forged signatures of the account holders. The Branch Manager lodged the FIR against the petitioner and two other co-accused persons. 4. Mr. Anukul Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been granted bail by a learned Single Judge of this Court in M.Cr.C(A) No. 280/2025 vide order dated 22.03.2025. He further submits that the investigation has till not been completed even after lapse of more than 4 ½ years. It is submitted that the withdrawals were made by the respective account holder themselves with their own signatures. Even otherwise, the petitioner is ready to deposit the alleged amount of Rs. 46,000/- before the competent authority. The transaction process of KCC loan is under the control of the Branch Manager and the Branch Manager can only sanction the loan. The withdrawals can also be made only with the permission of the Branch Manager and the petitioner had no 3 role to play and he has been made the scape goat in this case. Hence, he prays that the FIR in question may be quashed. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that on disclosure of commission of a cognizable offence, the police was bound to register the offence and the the investigation could not be completed after registration of the FIR as the petitioner absconded for a very long time. No ground worth consideration has been raised by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR in question and this petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Quashing of a complaint/ FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the Police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of the activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere. Similarly, in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, {AIR 1992 SC 684}, the Hon'ble Apex Court has illustratively given guidelines pertaining to the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as to when it can be exercised. 8. It is evident that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 22.03.2025 and the investigation could not be completed as the petitioner himself was absconding. Prima facie, the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence. This petition was filed on 05.10.2023 and the investigation is pending consideration. Looking to the gravity of the allegations, we do not find it a fit case where this Court should exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing 4 of the FIR. It would be appropriate that the investigation is brought to its logical end and as such, the Investigating Officer concerned is directed to conclude the investigation within a period of six weeks from today and submit a police report under under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C {Section 193 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023} before the trial Court concerned. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the said report, he may take recourse to law. 9. The petitioner shall furnish a copy of this order to the Investigating Officer concerned, within a period of one week from today. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.06.24 16:33:44 +0530