1 2025:CGHC:50265-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3065 of 2025 Cypriyan Toppo S/o Mathias Toppo Aged About 55 Years Residing At Ward No. 14 Pancham Colony, Tehsil- Pendra, District : Gaurela- Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Gaurella, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 2. Ramesh Kumar Lahre District Marketing Officer, Chhattisgarh State, C- Operative Marketing L.T.D. Maryadit, District : Gaurela- Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Himanshu Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/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 09.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Himanshu Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 1/State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.10.09 17:34:13 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “1. First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 009/2023 dated 05.01.2023 under Section 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code 1860 registered at Police Station Gaurella, District Gaurella-Pendra-Marvahi, Chhattisgarh; 2. The order dated 06.07.2024 of MJC No. 45 of 2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendra Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, allowing application filed under Section 302(2) fo Cr.P.C. 1973 filed by Rival Rice Millers of other accuseds, who are not complainant in FIR bearing No. 009 of 2023 dated 05.01.2023 and in which Closure Report bearing No. 02/2023 dated 25.04.2023 under Section 420 read with 34 of IPC, has been already filed by Police Station Gaurella, District Gaurella-Pendra-Marvahi, Chhattisgarh; 3. The order dated 24.08.2024 of MJC No. 45/2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendra Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, rejecting the Closure Report bearing No. 02/2023 dated 25.04.2023 under Section 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code 1860, filed by Police Station – Gaurella, District Gaurella-Pendra-Marvahi, Chhattisgarh; 4. The order dated 09.09.2024 of Criminal Case No. 1292 of 2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendra Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh taking cognizance of the aforementioned rejected Closure Report and recorded evidence of witnesses and documents filed with application filed 3 under Section 302(2) of Cr.P.C. 1973, which was filed by other persons who are Rival Rice Miller’s and are not complainant in (FIR) bearing No. 009/2023; 5. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1292/2024 titled ‘State of Chhattisgarh vs. Fakirchand Agrawal & Others’, pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendra Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6. The order dated 04.08.2025 passed in Criminal Revision 21/2025 titled ‘Cypriyan Toppo vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, by the learned Second Additional Session Judge, Pendra Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, whereby the learned Court rejected the revision.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file afresh. The learned State counsel opposed this prayer, noting that co-accused persons, namely, Fakirchand Agrawal, Gopal Krishna Agrawal, and Aashish Agrawal had earlier filed CRMP No. 3028 of 2025, which was dismissed by this Court on 26.09.2025. The petitioner contended that his case is distinguishable from that of the co-accused. After consideration, the Court declined the prayer for withdrawal and proceeded to hear the petition on merits. 4. The petitioner challenges the registration of FIR No. 009/2023 dated 05.01.2023 under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC, alleging that he, along with other entities, issued and submitted forged bank guarantees totaling Rs. 21.50 crores to fraudulently procure paddy. In total, sixty-one bank guarantees amounting to Rs. 44 crores were 4 submitted, of which thirty-eight were genuine and twenty-three allegedly forged. The petitioner contends that he had no role in any fraudulent act and that the FIR is fundamentally based on an anonymous complaint, raising questions of procedural propriety. 5. The FIR arose from directions issued by the Collector, District Gaurela–Pendra–Marwahi, following an inquiry initiated on the basis of an anonymous complaint by a person named Hari Om. Pursuant to these directions, the District Marketing Officer lodged a formal complaint with the police, leading to registration of FIR No. 009/2023. The petitioner submits that the complaint was not filed by any of the named complainants, and that subsequent filings by Gagan Agrawal and others were based on misrepresentations. 6. The police investigation culminated in Closure Report No. 02/2023 dated 25.04.2023, concluding that no case could be made out against the petitioner due to the non-availability of original or certified copies of the alleged forged bank guarantees. The investigating authorities repeatedly requested the District Marketing Officer and the State Bank of India, Pendra Road Branch, to provide the required documents, but none were produced. The Superintendent of Police approved the closure report, evidencing procedural compliance. 7. Despite the closure, Gagan Agrawal and others filed WPCR No.509/2023, falsely claiming that they were complainants. The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn on 21.12.2023, granting liberty to challenge the closure report before the competent 5 Magistrate. Thereafter, an application under Section 302(2) of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the same parties, misrepresenting themselves as complainants. The learned Magistrate allowed the application, rejected the police closure report, and proceeded to record evidence. 8. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.21/2025 before the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, which was dismissed on 04.08.2025. The present petition challenges the registration of the FIR and the subsequent procedural steps taken by the Magistrate. 9. Upon careful examination of the record, it is evident that the FIR was lodged in accordance with directions issued by the Collector and, despite being based on an anonymous complaint, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The police investigation, culminating in Closure Report No. 02/2023, demonstrates due diligence, as repeated requests for original or certified bank guarantees were unsuccessful, and the Superintendent of Police approved the closure report in accordance with Sections 173(2) and 157 of the Cr.P.C. Subsequent actions by third parties misrepresenting themselves as complainants, and the Magistrate’s procedural decisions, do not constitute illegality attributable to the petitioner. The petitioner’s case is materially different from that of the co-accused, as his involvement is limited to his official capacity as Branch Manager, and he has not been shown to have instigated or colluded in any misrepresentation. Interference at this stage would be premature, as pre-trial quashing of FIRs is warranted only in exceptional 6 circumstances, which are not present here. The petitioner retains the right to defend himself fully during trial and challenge any adverse findings through revision or appeal. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan