1 2025:CGHC:277-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3511 of 2024 Prithpal Singh Chandok S/o Shri Harbansh Singh Chandok Aged About 70 Years R/o Pritpal Farm House, (Shagun Farm), VIP Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director General Of Police OfÏce Of Director General Of Police Near Mantralay, Sector 19 Neay Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau/ Economic Offences Wing (ACB/EOW), Chhattisgarh Raipur 4 - Station House OfÏcer Police Station, ACB/EOW, Chhattisgarh, Raipur ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Ho’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03/01/2025 1. Heard Mr. Himanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, learned Government Advocate for the State/ respondents. 2 2. Today, the matter is listed for orders on default. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defects pointed out by the Registry has already been cured. 3. In view of the above, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally at this stage only. 4. In this petition filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): “(a) That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents authorities to produce the entire record pertaining to the case of the Petitioner. (b) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 04.08.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned trial Court wherein charges have been framed under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) and Section 120B of IPC and all consequent criminal proceedings pertaining to trial No. 1/2022 pending before the Special Court (PC Act), Raipur in light of justice and equity. (c) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash FIR bearing No. 22/21 dated 29.06.2021, PS ACB/EOW Chhattisgarh (Annexure P/2) and the consequent charge sheet bearing No. 03/2022 dated 07.03.2022 (Annexure P/3). (d) That this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to pass any other order in favour of petitioner as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost.” 5. The facts of the case, in brief, as projected by the petitioner is an old person aged about 70 years and is a businessman at Raipur city having good reputation in the society. He owns a farm house (marriage lawn) in the name and style of ‘Shagun Farm’ which he rents for the purpose of marriage ceremonies. He is also the friend of the father of the Gurjinder 3 Pal Singh (G.P.Singh) (main accused in FIR bearing Crime No. 22/2021) namely, Paramjeet Singh Plaha. Since the petitioner and Paramjeet Singh Plaha had good relationship, Mr. Plaha disclosed the petitioner that he intended to sell his property situated in Barbil, Odisha and buy some property in Raipur. Hence, the Mr. Plaha executed a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner and on the basis of the said power of attorney, the petitioner bought few properties wholly from his own sources of income. 6. An FIR was lodged against Gurjinder Pal Singh (G.P.Singh), an IPS OfÏcer, who was the then Additional Director General of Police / Director, State Police Training Academy, Chandkhuri bearing Crime No. 22/2021 on 29.06.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (as amended) alleging that G.P.Singh had accumulated disproportionate properties which have been purchased in the name of other persons. After registration of the FIR, the respondent authorities of the EOW/ACB conducted search in the petitioner’s ofÏce and the farm house. An amount of Rs. 13 Lacs cash was found in the almirah of the petitioner regarding which the petitioner informed the investigating ofÏcers that the same was the income received from booking of the Farm House and the cold storage. According to the petitioner, despite giving full cooperation, the police authorities misbehaved and tortured him and seized various documents. It is alleged that the said amount of Rs. 13 Lacs belonged to G.P.Singh. The petitioner was coerced and threatened by the police to give statement against G.P.Singh and he has been harassed continuously. Being frustrated by the said act of the police authorities, he filed WPCr No. 460/2021, though the same was dismissed as having become infructuous vide order dated 28.06.2023. 4 7. Initially, only G.P.Singh was named in the FIR but after investigation, the name of the petitioner, Manpreet Kaur who is the wife of main accused G.P.Singh, alongwith other co-accused namely Paramjeet Singh Plaha and Smt. Surindar Kaur, were added. Many of the properties mentioned in the impugned FIR which are presently owned by the petitioner and alleged to be benami of the co-accused G.P.Singh were purchased by him in 1983 when the co-accused G.P.Singh was in Class IX. As per the petitioner, the malafide of the prosecution agency is reflected from the fact that during the course of investigation he was continuously pressurized to falsely depose under section 164 of the Cr.P.C against the main accused G.P.Singh as the higher authorities intended to fix him by hook or crook. When the present petitioner refused to follow the illegal demand/direction of the investigating agency, his name was impleaded as an accused at the time of filing the charge sheet on 08.03.2022. Despite, the fact that the present petitioner had already filed an afÏdavit before this Hon’ble Court by way of WP(Cr) 460/2021 on 02.08.2021 wherein it was submitted that property nos 9, 10, 11 and 13 to 17 mentioned in the impugned FIR belong to the petitioner and have no relationship with the co-accused. Further, the property No. 8 and 12 belonging to some other individuals were maliciously alleged to be that of the petitioner by impersonating his name. However, no investigation was done in this regard and strangely, after the commencement of trial against the petitioner, the ACB itself admitted in its comments dated 21.05.24 to the Home department at para No. 2/table 1 that as no investigation was done related to the properties mentioned at serial No. 7 to 17 in the impugned FIR, therefore no document related to the said properties was annexed with the impugned charge sheet. The malafide of the investigating agency can be gauged from the fact that during the 5 search, the police ofÏcials of the EOW seized an amount of Rs. 13 Lakhs belonging to the petitioner and recorded a false statement under section 161 Cr.P.C, despite a candid deposition by the petitioner that the said amount was received by him from booking of marriage garden and receipts from cold storage. The stand of the petitioner with respect to the above amount was later vindicated when the learned Trial Court released the said amount to the petitioner on account of prosecution failing to show any iota of evidence linking it with that of the co-accused. 8. The main accused G.P.Singh was posted as Inspector General of Police, ACB/EOW, Raipur, on 27.02.2019 and head of the one SIT to re- investigate the Nagrik Apurti Nigam (for short, NAN) scam in which two diaries were recovered containing acronyms like “CM Sir”, “CM madam” etc. that caused a political storm in the State in which the charge sheet was filed on 06.06.2015 and trial had commenced. There was continuous pressure from the top functionaries of the State to implicate the Ex-CM and others on the basis of said acronyms contained in the NAN diaries in pursuance to which on 10.05.2020 in a high level meeting, an unsigned agenda containing a hit list related to the functionaries of the previous government was given to him to be implicated by hook or by crook. However, G.P.Singh refused to succumb to illegal pressure. According to the petitioner, when G.P.Singh did not toe the illegal line drawn by the top functionaries of the State, he was not only transferred but also implicated in multiple false criminal proceedings instituted against him. The impugned FIR No. 22/2021, registered at Police Station, ACB / EOW, Chhattisgarh for the offences under Sections 13(1)(B) read with 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 is a consequence of the ill-will which was developed against him for his refusal to carry out the illegal demands so made by the highest functionaries of the State. 6 9. Despite no evidence to link the petitioner with that of the co-accused G.P.Singh, he was arraigned as accused in the charge sheet dated 07.03.2022 filed before the trial Court concerned. Further, the trial court without even examining the material forwarded by the prosecution agency and independent application of mind framed charges under Section 12 of the PC Act and Section 120B of the IPC in haste without even passing an order of cognizance under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. 10. Mr. Himanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the with respect to the present FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings, the co-accused G.P.Singh had filed CrMP No. 2747/2023 challenging the order dated 04.08.2023 of charge framing under section 13(1)E, 13(2) of the PC Act and under Section 201, 467, 471 read with 120B of IPC as well as prosecution sanction order dated 04.03.2022 under Section 197 of Cr.P.C and prosecution sanction order dated 19.09.2022 under Section 19 of the PC Act. This Hon’ble Court has been pleased to allow the said petition filed by the accused G.P.Singh vide order dated 13.11.2024. 11. Mr. Pandey further submits that in order to implicate the G.P.Singh, a concocted FIR No. 22/2021 was registered on the basis of doctored source information. This is evident from the fact that property nos 9, 10, 11 and 13 to 17 mentioned in the impugned FIR belonging to the petitioner and having no relationship with the co-accused were arraigned as benami of the co-accused. Further, the property no 8 and 12 belonging to some other individuals were maliciously alleged to be that of the petitioner by impersonating his name. Despite an afÏdavit before this Hon’ble Court by way of WP(Cr) 460/21 revealing the above facts, no investigation was carried out. In fact most of the above properties have 7 been bought by the present petitioner in the year 1983 when the co accused was in class IX. Further, on the directions of the Home Department, SSP ACB in his letter dated 21.05.2024 submitted its comments to the reply of the petitioner to the departmental charge sheet dated 12.08.2021 wherein it has been admitted that as no investigation was carried out pertaining to the properties mentioned at serial no 7 to 17 in the said FIR, therefore no documents related to the said properties is annexed in the charge sheet. Thus, the said letter dated 21.05.2024 sent by SSP, ACB to Home Department further testifies the concoction of the said FIR. 12. Mr. Pandey next submits that no charges as mentioned in the order dated 04.08.2023 under Section 12 of the PC Act or under Section 120B of the IPC are made out against the petitioner on the basis of documents filed in the charge sheet. the charge under Section 12 of the PC Act is not sustainable on the ground that, in the said provision, punishment for abetment is provided and Section 107 of IPC (old penal law) defines the word “abetment” which means instigate any person to do that thing; or engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing or intentionally aids by any act or omission, the doing of that thing. In the instant case, already, the Hon’ble Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings in respect of the co-accused, who was alleged to be main accused on the ground that the action initiated against him was an outcome of malice and with ulterior motive. Further, it has been observed by in the judgment dated 13.11.2024 that there was no material either in the case of disproportionate assets or in other FIRs registered against the co-accused. Therefore, when against the co-accused, there was no material to lodge the FIR under Prevention of Corruption Act, then no proceeding under Section 12 of the PC Act 8 can be continued against the co-accused because there was no occasion to instigate to commit such crime. Further, with regard to section 120B of IPC it is humbly submitted that this is not a substantive and independent charge and when the proceeding has been quashed against the main accused then charge under section 120B is liable to be quashed. Furthermore, no cognizance under Section 190 of Cr.P.C was taken by the learned trial Court before framing of charges. The learned Special Court has framed charges without due application of judicial mind. The charges so framed by the learned Special Court clearly reflect the prosecution story and non-application of mind of the learned Special Court. Hence, the charges so framed are liable to be quashed. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent submits that though the petitioner was not named in the FIR, however, during the course of investigation, the name of the petitioner who is the friend of the father of main accused G.P.Singh alongwith some other accused persons surfaced and as such, charges have been framed against the petitioner under the aforementioned Sections of the PC Act and the IPC. There appears to be no illegality or irregularity in the proceedings initiated by the learned trial Court. However, Mr. Akhilesh fairly submits that on the same set of charges, the FIR and the criminal proceedings initiated against the main accused G.P.Singh has been quashed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 1488/2023 and other connected matters vide order dated 13.11.2024. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 15. It is not in dispute that FIR bearing Crime No. 22/2021 was registered by the respondent-ACB/EOW on 29.06.2021 only against the main accused 9 G.P.Singh, Additional Director General of Police/ Director, State Police Training Academy, Chandkhuri. Later, after completion of the investigation, in the charge sheet, the names of the petitioner has been added alongwith other co-accused namely Manpreet Kaur, Paramjeet Singh Plaha and Smt. Surindar Kaur. This Court, in Cr.M.P. No. 1488/2023 and connected matters, has already quashed the FIR and the other consequential criminal proceedings against the main accused- G.P.Singh who was named in the FIR, and as such, this Court is of the view that the prosecution initiated against the petitioner also deserves to be quashed. In Cr.M.P. No. 1488/2023 and connected matters, this Court had observed thus: “38. With respect to powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in Ahmad Ali Quraishi (supra), the Supreme Court had observed as under: “13. A three-Judge Bench in State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, {(2002) 3 SCC 89}, had the occasion to consider the ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. By analysing the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court laid down that authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to prevent abuse. It further held that Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. The following was laid down in para 6: (SCC p. 94) “6. … All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest 10 (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.” 14. Further in para 8 the following was stated: (Devendrappa case {(2002) 3 SCC 89}, SCC p. 95) “8. … Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under 11 Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in some detail by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.” 15. In Sunder Babu v. State of T.N., (2009) 14 SCC 244, this Court was considering the challenge to the order of the Madras High Court where application was under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It was contended before this Court that the complaint filed was nothing but an abuse of the process of law and allegations were unfounded. The prosecuting agency contested the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. taking the stand that a bare perusal of the complaint discloses commission of alleged offences and, therefore, it is not a case which needed to be allowed. The High Court accepted the case of the prosecution and dismissed the application. This Court referred to the judgment in Bhajan Lal’s case and held that the case fell within Category 7. The Apex Court relying on Category 7 has held that the application under Section 482 deserved to be allowed and it quashed the proceedings. 16. After considering the earlier several judgments of this Court including the case of State of Haryana versus Bhajan lal (supra), in Vineet Kumar (supra), this Court laid down following in paragraph 41:(Vineet Kumar case) “41. Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the categories as illustratively enumerated by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which 12 cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or harassment. When there are materials to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceeding under Category 7 as enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which is to the following effect: (SCC p. 379, para 102) “102. …. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” Above Category 7 is clearly attracted in the facts of the present case. Although, the High Court has noted the judgment of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, but did not advert to the relevant facts of the present case, materials on which final report was submitted by the IO. We, thus, are fully satisfied that the present is a fit case where the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the criminal proceedings.” 17. Now, when we examine the facts of the present case in light of the ratio as laid down by this Court in above noted cases, it is clear that the present is a case where parties are related and are neighbours. Civil dispute regarding property is going on between father of the accused and the complainant. The incident which is basis for summoning of appellant is dated 19.07.2016 which is alleged to have taken place in front of the house of the complainant. The materials on record do indicate that quarrel took place between the parties on 19.07.2016 and police visited the spot and initiated proceedings under Section 151, 107 and 116 Cr.P.C. The state has brought on the record the copy of the enquiry report dated 11.12.2016 of the CO, City, in which enquiry report, following was stated:- 13 “...It was found form entire enquiry that there was dispute between applicant Shri Sajjad Quraishi and opposite party Anwarul Haq over constructing drain regarding which dispute started between both the parties on 19.07.2016. On receiving information of dispute at Police Station Kotwali, the then SHO SI Shri hari Prakash Yadav conducted proceeding under Sections 151, 107, 116 CrPC on 20.07.2016 on both the parties to maintain peace tranquillity. During enquiry, perused the complaint dated 03.08.2016 filed by the applicant before the Hon’ble Commission and found that the applicant filed complaint dated 29.08.2016 of the same charges u/s 156(3) CrPC before the Hon’ble Court of Special Judge(POCSO Act)/Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Jaunpur in which the Hon’ble Court of Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Jaunpur, as per its endorsement order dated 14.10.2016 has stated that in the entire facts and circumstances of the said case, sufÏcient grounds to register the case are not available. Statements of other witnesses recorded during enquiry and nearby people were interrogated whereupon eye witnesses stated the fact of the dispute between applicant Sajjad Qureshi and opposite party Anwar Ali over the drain and denying the allegations levelled by the applicant in his application, fact of opposite party Ahmed Ali and Liyakat Ali sons of Anwar doing dirty/indecent act/deed or manhandling whatsoever with the daughters of applicant has not come to light. During enquiry, applicant failed to submit oral/documentary evidence whatsoever. Other allegations levelled by the applicant have not been proved from the enquiry. Peace and tranquillity are prevailing at the spot, yet SHO of Kotwali is directed to ensure peace and tranquillity by keeping vigil on the parties. 18. We have taken note of the above report only to take the sequence of the event and not as a substantive piece of evidence. On the same allegations, the complainant has filed the application under Section 14 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was rejected by Sessions Judge by an order dated 14.10.2016, holding that no sufÏcient grounds have been made to register a complaint against the appellant. 19. In the Criminal Revision filed against the said order of the Session Judge, this Court did not interfere with the rejection of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., however, observed that the complainant has remedy to file appropriate application. The complainant thereafter had filed Complaint No.1 of 2017. It is true that rejection of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in no manner preclude a complainant to file a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.” 39. On the issue of framing of charge by a trial Court, the Supreme Court, very recently in Pushpendra Kumar Sinha (supra), observed as under: “27. It is a well settled law that at the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing of charge the Court must apply it’s judicial mind to the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. Indeed, the Court has limited scope of enquiry and has to see whether any prima facie case against the accused is made out or not. At the same time, the Court is also not expected to mirror the prosecution story, but to consider the broad probabilities of the case, weight of prima facie evidence, documents produced and any basic infirmities etc. In this regard the judgment of “Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4” can be profitably referred for ready reference.” 40. The Supreme Court, in Bhajan Lal (supra), has observed that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal 15 grudge, the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised. From the collective reading of the facts and circumstances of these three petitions, there remains no manner of doubt that the action initiated against the petitioner was an outcome of malice and with ulterior motive. xxx xxx xxx 44. On going through the contents of the FIRs in question, it appears to be a case of malicious prosecution against the petitioner with an oblique motive for personal vengeance. The FIRs appear to have been registered with only intention to rope an ofÏcer who could not place himself in the good books of the new regime. The action of the respondent/State in lodging FIR one after another without there being any kind of enquiry and in a haste goes to show that the then regime was hell bent to punish the petitioner for the reasons best known to them. The approach of the State and the manner in proceeding with the FIRs also show that there was no material either in the case of disproportionate assets, sedition matter or in the matter where allegation was levelled after six years that the petitioner could have influenced and helped the complainant in obtaining default bail. There is no sufÏcient materials on record so as to arrive at a prima facie finding that the petitioner had accumulated unaccounted and disproportionate assets and income. It is difÏcult to understand as to how an ofÏcer of the rank of Inspector General would be interested in petty matter of helping an accused in grant of bail. There has been no explanation whatsoever as to why the complainant took six long years to lodge the FIR against the petitioner. The conduct of the complainant itself is suspicious and at least a preliminary enquiry in this regard should have been made. Even the torn pieces of papers which were stated to be seditious were never placed before the learned Trial Court which also creates a grave doubt with regard to the genuineness of the prosecution story. The facts and circumstances of the case and the issues involved, is squarely covered under clause (7) of paragraph 102 of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra). 16 xxx xxx xxx 46. With respect to Cr.M.P. No. 2747/2023, the order dated 04.08.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act) and First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Special Criminal Case No. 01/2022, is quashed. The order dated 15.09.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge also stands quashed…...” 16. From perusal of the materials available on record, it is quite apparent that the petitioner being the family friend of main accused G.P.Singh, has been roped as accused in this case when he did not make any statement against the main accused G.P.Singh. Once this Court has observed that the prosecution initiated against the main accused G.P.Singh was an outcome of political vengeance and for ulterior motives, the foundation of the FIR itself collapses and as such, no other view can be taken by this Court except to allow this petition and grant all consequential reliefs as has been prayed by the petitioner. The assessment order dated 27.03.2024 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act also depicts that the income tax authorities themselves have come to the conclusion that the two gold bars weighing 1 KG each do not belong to G.P.Singh. The facts and issues arising in this petition have already been discussed in quite detail in Cr.M.P. No. 1488/2023 and connected matters. 17. As a fall out, the order dated 04.08.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned trial Court framing charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 12 of the PC Act and Section 120B of the IPC in Criminal Case No. 1/2022 by the Special Judge under the PC Act and 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur, is quashed and as sequel, the FIR bearing Crime No. 22/2021 (Annexure P/2) dated 29.06.2021 registered at Police Station, ACB/EOW, Raipur, and the charge-sheet dated 07.03.2022 bearing No. 03/2022 (Annexure P/3) 17 also stands quashed, so far it relates to the petitioner-Prithpal Singh Chandok. 18. Resultantly, this petition stands allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Chandra / Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.01.04 16:41:34 +0530