1 2025:CGHC:6033-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2479 of 2018 Surendra Bansal S/o Late T.R. Bansal Aged About 45 Years Working As Steno Typist In Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Civil Lines Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amitesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03/02/2025 1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR bearing Crime No. 452/2018 and the final report submitted by the Police of Police Station, Civil Lines, Raipur, for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 467 of the Indian Penal Code before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur and the consequential criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner 2 was working as Steno-Typist in the Anti Corruption Bureau. On the basis of complaint made by the Accounts OfÏcer, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner alleging that he had submitted some forged and fabricated medical bills. It is the contention of the petitioner that since earlier he had filed a writ petition before this Court being WPS No. 564/2018, because of which the authorities of the Department became frustrated and in order to teach lesson to the petitioner, the false FIR has been lodged. 3. On a specific query being made by this Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard the stage of trial, Mr. Pandey submits that this petition has been pending since 04.12.2018 and even there is no interim order passed in favour of the petitioner. However, in six years only one prosecution witness has been examined, hence, the trial Court concerned may be directed to conclude the trial expeditiously. 4. Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for State/respondent submits that this petition has been rendered infructuous as the petitioner had prayed for quashing of the FIR and the final report but after framing of the charge, one of the prosecution witness has also been examined and the trial is in progress. 5. In view of the above submission, as after framing of the charges, one of the prosecution witnesses has been examined and the trial is in progress, we do not deem it proper to interfere with the same at this stage and as such, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court concerned to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from today. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.02.04 11:20:26 +0530