1 2025:CGHC:568-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3535 of 2024 Yogesh Kumar Lahre S/o Puri Ram Lahre Aged About 36 Years R/o Village And Post Godadih P.S. And Tahsil - Pachpedi District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Pachpedi District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short, ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of charge-sheet, which has been filed in pursuance of the Crime No. 210/2024 registered at Police Station, Pachpedi, District – Bilaspur against the petitioner for the ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.01.06 18:32:32 +0530 2 offence punishable under Section 409, 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No. 10298/2024 and all further consequential proceedings pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a temporary employee working as Data Entry Operator, who is working under the co-accused Manager / in-charge of Paddy Purchase Centre, Gogadih, District – Bilaspur, he has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question and the main accused the Manager / in charge of the Centre in question, namely Prakash Lahre, who has admitted that he has sold the paddy of market with the help of one Dharam Lal Patel. He further submitted that the petitioner has already been granted regular bail and there is no allegation against the petitioner in the charge-sheet excepting the memorandum statement of the petitioner that he had knowledge that there was some irregularities being committed in distribution of paddy. 4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent opposes this petition and submit that since the charges have been framed against the petitioner, and the perusal of the materials on record discloses commission of cognizable offence, no interference is warranted at this stage. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 3 6. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 7. It has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, that the proceedings relating to cognizable ofences cannot be interfered except on certain grounds enumerated by the Apex Court in the said judgment. It is evident that, none of the grounds mentioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment are attracted in the present case. In State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani & others reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of cognizable ofence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR. Also what is to 4 be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence. 8. From perusal of the contents of the FIR as well as in the charge- sheet, it transpires that there is specific allegation that center in- charge Prakash Lahare and data entry operator Yogesh Kumar Lahare (petitioner herein), in collusion with each other, have embezzled 4950.21 quintal paddy worth Rs. 3100/- per quintal total worth Rs. 1,53,45,651/- and have earned illegal profit by causing intentional loss to the government. 9. On the basis of aforesaid allegation levelled against the petitioner, this Court cannot come to a conclusion that prima facie, no case is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner will have every opportunity before the learned Trial Court to rebut the allegations levelled against him. This Court cannot examine or appreciate the evidences that may be led before the learned Trial Court and stalling the trial would be wholly unjustiied. Further, in light of what has been said by the Supreme Court in Bhajanlal (supra) and Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra), there appears to be no good ground for quashing of the charge-sheet. 10. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra