1 2025:CGHC:31225-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1529 of 2021 Manoj Kumar Diwakar S/o Kirtan Lal Aged About 36 Years Working As Society Manager, Resident Of Village Kataud, Police Station Navagarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bhataon, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 2. Amit Kumar Shukla S/o Shri Ramkishor Shukla Aged About 45 Years Resident of Village Chilfy, Dadhi, Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh Working as Food Inspector, Office at Food Branch Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. Branch Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sudeep Malik, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.07.08 17:32:21 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 08.07.2025 1. Mr. Sudeep Malik, learned counsel submits that he has filed his power yesterday in the present case and prays that he may be permitted to argue in the present matter. 2. In view of the above, we permit Mr. Sudeep Malik, learned counsel to argue in the present matter. 3. Heard Mr. Sudeep Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 1/State. 4. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and may also kindly be quashed the First Information Report (Annexure A/1) registered at Police Station Bhatgaon, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara in Crime No. 178 of 2019 under Section 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner as well as criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No. 616 of 2019 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Bhatgaon, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh in respect of petitioner’s case, in the interest of justice.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant/respondent No. 2, who is a Food Inspector, on being directed by the Collector, filed a written complaint in the concerned Police Station 3 alleging therein that 662.33 quintals of paddy amounting to Rs.16,55,825/- found to be shortage thereby and the petitioner and other accused persons misappropriated the government money. On the basis of said complaint, the offences under Section 409 and 34 of the IPC has been registered against the petitioner, which is false and baseless allegation. 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case without there being any material available on record. He also submits that the petitioner is an employee of Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Raipur (C.G.) and by order dated 22.06.2018, the petitioner has been transferred from Simga Society Rohra to Branch Bhatgaon Socity Bhatgaon, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), since then, the petitioner is performing his duty sincerely and honestly without any complaint. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the alleged shortage of paddy was found in the year 2018-2019. After the posting of the petitioner, he himself inquired the matter and found irregularities and he prepared an inquiry report dated 12.02.2019 in this regard. He further stated that the alleged offence has been committed by the co-accused person. The petitioner himself reported the matter to the concerned Police Station on 07.03.2019, but the Police did not register FIR and directed him to submit authorization letter regarding lodging of FIR from the higher officials. Thereafter, the petitioner vide letter dated 15.03.2019 making request to the higher officials in this regard. From the inquiry conducted by the committed also, it is established that misappropriation has been 4 conducted by the co-accused persons. There is not direct evidence levelled against the petitioner regarding the allegation offence. Hence, it is prayed that the petitioner may be acquitted from charges of commission of offence under Sections 409 and 34 of the IPC registered against him. 8. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petitioner has not committed any aforesaid offence levelled against him because the complainant has false complaint against the present petitioner, after lapse of 10 months, lodging FIR against the present petitioner. He also contended that the amount of the government has not embezzled by the petitioner and has not committed any aforesaid offences under Sections 409 and 34 of the IPC by him which shortage of the paddy has been embezzled by the unknown person and the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.03.2020 granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in MCRCA No. 1966 of 2019. He would submit that the complainant has registered FIR against the petitioner as per instruction of the Collector, Balodabazar based on the false and fabricated inquiry report without considering the material available on record, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. Hence, this petition. 9. On the other, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the investigation has been done strictly in accordance with law and after completion of investigation the final report/charge-sheet has been filed before the trial Court and the learned trial Court had already taken the cognizance of the offence and the charges have already framed against the petitioner and other co-accused persons and the evidence of complainant/respondent No. 2 is under way, hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 5 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 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 of the Constitution of India or inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS. 12. In the present case, admittedly, after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner and the learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the evidences and upon finding prima facie evidence regarding commission of offence, the trial has been initiated against the petitioner and the learned trial Court have already been framed the charges against the petitioner and other co- accused persons and the evidence of complainant/respondent No. 2 is under way, hence at this stage, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and there was no interim order passed in favour of the petitioner. 13. Accordingly, the present CRMP is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan