1 2025:CGHC:44177-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2716 of 2025 R.P. Kutar (As Mentioned In F.I.R.) Rajendra Prasad Kutar S/o Shri Ramsevak Aged About 63 Years Occupation- Retired Executive Engineer, R/o M.I.G.-42, Alka Avenue, Uslapur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer- Ambikapur Dehat (Gandhinagar), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 2. Rohit Singh S/o Yogendra Nath Singh R/o Biside Chandu Garrage, Ward No. 5, Godhanpur, Near Water Tank, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Rathod, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 01.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Rathod, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 1/State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.09.03 11:12:08 +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 kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the impugned First Information Report dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) bearing No. 0385 of 2025 lodge by the Police Station Ambikapur Dehat, Gandhinagar (C.G.) under Section 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and all the consequential criminal investigations pending against the petitioner, which is apparently abuse of process of law and bad in law, as such liable to be quashed by this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a retired government servant who has served the respondent-State with utmost sincerity and devotion until his superannuation. It is submitted that an online tender was invited by the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services Division, Ambikapur for the construction of a 450- metre boundary wall at the Government Poultry Farm, Ambikapur. The Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, Ambikapur, sanctioned funds vide order dated 26.02.2020. The said contract was awarded to one Deepanshu Raj, proprietor of M/s Ashirwad Construction, on 14.05.2020, and the construction work was duly completed on 30.01.2021 as per the completion certificate issued by the department. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not posted in the concerned office during the period 3 of tender, execution, or completion of the aforesaid construction work. The petitioner was promoted and posted as Executive Engineer in the said office only on 03.08.2022, when he took charge from his predecessor, Shri Vipin Raj Minj. Thus, by no stretch of imagination can the petitioner be held responsible for any alleged irregularities committed during the period 2020–2021. He also submits that only after assuming charge in August 2022, the complainant/respondent No. 2 approached the petitioner alleging misappropriation and excess payment in the said construction. Being duty-bound, the petitioner, despite having no role in the execution of the work, constituted a three- member committee vide letter dated 13.10.2023 to enquire into the allegations. Reminders dated 06.11.2023, 14.11.2023, and 08.01.2024 were issued, and eventually the committee submitted its report on 19.01.2024. The petitioner, in turn, promptly forwarded the said report to higher authorities vide letter dated 05.02.2024 for necessary action. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the petitioner’s bona fide conduct, respondent No. 2, being dissatisfied with the departmental process, made successive complaints before the Collector (09.02.2024), the Police Station (12.06.2024), and the Superintendent of Police (18.06.2024). As the police authorities did not find any cognizable offence, no FIR was registered. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, alleging misappropriation and excess payment. Vide order dated 28.03.2025, the complaint was directed to be investigated, pursuant to which FIR 4 No. 385/2025 dated 08.07.2025 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. 6. The petitioner respectfully submits that the impugned FIR does not contain a single specific allegation against him. The entire tender, construction, and payment process had been completed long before the petitioner’s posting in the office. On the contrary, the petitioner has acted diligently by constituting an enquiry committee and forwarding its report to higher authorities. Thus, his implication is arbitrary, malicious, and a clear abuse of the process of law. Moreover, respondent No. 2 is neither an aggrieved party, nor a beneficiary, nor a competitor in the contract, and therefore, has no locus standi. The complaint has been lodged after an unexplained delay of more than three years from the completion of the work (30.01.2021), which itself indicates mala fides. It is further pointed out that this Hon’ble Court, considering the petitioner’s retired status and absence of involvement, has already granted him anticipatory bail vide order dated 25.07.2025 in MCRCA No. 1109 of 2025. Hence, this petition. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions of the petitioner and contends that once the FIR has been registered pursuant to the order under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., it is incumbent upon the investigating agency to conduct a fair investigation and bring the matter to its logical conclusion. At this stage, the truth or falsity of allegations cannot be adjudicated by this Hon’ble Court. The role of each accused, including the petitioner, can be determined only 5 after a thorough investigation. It is further submitted that the complaint before the Magistrate disclosed prima facie allegations of misappropriation and excess payment, and therefore, the investigation cannot be stifled at the threshold. The petition, being premature, deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned FIR. 9. The jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR, or charge-sheet is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly. Courts ordinarily do not interfere with investigations of cognizable offences. FIRs may be quashed only where allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence. In State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 605, the Apex Court held that quashing is permissible in rare cases, such as where allegations are frivolous, inherently improbable, or mala fide. Similarly, in Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill, reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259, and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd., reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, it was held that a prima facie case prevents quashing, though patently absurd allegations may be quashed. Further, in Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Court emphasized that Courts cannot probe the reliability of allegations at the threshold. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 540, it was reiterated 6 that probabilities of the prosecution case or mala fide intent cannot be assessed at the quashing stage. 10. Applying the above principles, the contentions raised by the petitioner’s counsel cannot be examined at this stage. Adjudication of factual disputes, evaluation of evidence, or assessment of credibility does not fall within the jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. On the material on record, it cannot be concluded that the criminal proceedings are manifestly mala fide or instituted with an ulterior motive to harass the accused. FIRs or criminal proceedings can be quashed only in accordance with the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above decisions. 11. In the present case, the petitioner’s principal defence is that he was posted only after the completion of the construction work and had no role in the alleged irregularities. He further contends that, on the contrary, he constituted a committee to enquire into the complaint. These are undoubtedly matters of defence which the petitioner is entitled to raise during investigation and, if required, at trial. However, such disputed factual issues cannot be adjudicated upon in proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or Section 528 of the BNSS. 12. The allegations contained in the FIR, when read along with the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, prima facie disclose serious allegations of misappropriation of public funds, irregularities in the execution of a government contract, and excess payment to the contractor. On the face of it, these allegations suggest a systematic 7 irregularity in the tendering and execution process and indicate possible criminal culpability. While the petitioner contends that he assumed charge after the completion of the work, the nexus, if any, between the petitioner and the alleged irregularities can only be determined through a thorough and independent investigation. Taken in their entirety, the allegations prima facie constitute cognizable offences under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. Accordingly, a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner, and this Court, while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or Section 528 of the BNSS, cannot at this stage absolve him of all responsibility. The ultimate determination of his liability is a matter to be examined during investigation and, if necessary, at trial. 13. In view of the settled legal principles and having regard to the fact that the FIR has been registered pursuant to a judicial order under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., this Court is of the considered opinion that the case does not fall within the exceptional categories warranting quashing. The investigation must, therefore, be allowed to proceed unhindered to its logical conclusion. 14. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that any observation made herein shall not prejudice the petitioner’s rights, and the investigating agency shall conduct the investigation fairly, independently, and in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan