1 2025:CGHC:52622-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3247 of 2025 Bhanu Pratap Soni S/o Late Amarjeet Ram Soni Aged About 47 Years Occupation - Patwari, Patwari Halka No. 5, Village Dumariya, Tahsil - Surajpur R/o Village - Nevra, Mandirpara, Post - Basdei, P.S. - Surajpur, Distt. - Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station E.O.W. And A.C.B. Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Manish Jindiya S/o Shri Premchand Jindiya Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Nehru Park Road, Surajpur District Surajpur ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate For Respondent /State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29/10/2025 1. The instant CRMP has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS with the following prayer:- JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.10.30 10:21:48 +0530 2 “1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the chargesheet bearing Final report no.20/2025 dated 25.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) in FIR no. 31/2025 dated 3.05.2025 registered in P.S E.O.W & A.C.B Raipur District Raipur (C.G) filed against Petitioner for the offence under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption act 1988 and Criminal Proceedings of Criminal case no. Spl Prevention of Corruption act 3/2025 pending before Judge (Prevention of Corruption act) Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G) in the interest of Justice. 2. That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 26.06.2025 (Annexure P/2) taking cognizance of final report no.20/2025 by learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption act) Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G) in the interest of Justice. 3. Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper may also be granted to the petitioner in the interest of Justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant Manish Jindiya (respondent No. 2), purchased land bearing Khasra No. 418/7, area 0.08 hectare, situated at Village Nayanpur, Patwari Halka No. 19, through a registered sale deed, and the concerned Tahsildar ordered mutation of his name in the revenue records. Despite repeated requests, the petitioner, who was working as the Patwari of the said area, did not enter the complainant’s name in the records. Subsequently, when the complainant approached the petitioner for preparation of boundary and demarcation of the land, the petitioner allegedly demanded an illegal gratification of ₹20,000/- for carrying out the said work. The complainant then lodged a complaint before the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Ambikapur. Thereafter, on 01.05.2025, a trap was laid by the ACB, 3 and the applicant accepted 20,000/- from the complainant ₹ (respondent No. 2). On noticing the trap team, the applicant attempted to discard the money by placing it on the table. The trap team recovered the tainted money from his possession and completed all necessary formalities. Consequently, an FIR was registered for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the applicant was arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the complainant had no locus to file the complaint, as he is neither the owner nor beneficiary of the land, which belongs to Niraj Jindiya, who made no allegations against the petitioner. It was argued that there is no proof of demand or acceptance of bribe, and the alleged conversation dated 08.04.2025 does not show any demand. He further submits that the petitioner had already been transferred from Patwari Halka No. 19 to P.H. No. 5, Dumariya, on 09.04.2025, and the mutation was completed on 17.04.2025, well before the trap. The tainted money was recovered from the table, not from the petitioner’s possession, and the sodium carbonate test showed no contact with the notes. Further, the microchip used for recording the trap was found empty as per the panchnama dated 01.05.2025. It was therefore submitted that the case is false, concocted, and amounts to a misuse of the Prevention of Corruption Act and prays for quashment of the FIR, Charge-sheet and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. 4 4. Per Contra, learned State counsel opposed the submissions made, contending that the prosecution has sufficient evidence of demand and acceptance of 20,000/- by the petitioner. During ₹ verification and the trap, the petitioner was recorded agreeing to accept the bribe and was caught red-handed. The tainted money was recovered immediately after acceptance, and the chemical test confirmed contact with the notes. He further argued that the petitioner’s prior transfer does not negate the offence, as the evidence and witness statements clearly establish his involvement. According to the learned counsel, the complainant herewith was the power of attorney holder, in respect of subject land. Therefore, the prosecution case is well-founded, and no ground for relief is made out. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and the documents on record, this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The materials collected during investigation, including the verification proceedings, recovery of tainted currency, and supporting witness statements, prima facie indicate the demand and acceptance of ₹20,000/- as illegal gratification by the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner that he was transferred prior to the trap, that the mutation had already been completed, and that the tainted money 5 was recovered from the table rather than his possession, are all factual disputes which can only be examined during the course of trial. Even otherwise there is a serious allegation of demand of illegal gratification of Rs.20,000/- against the petitioner, who is a public servant. 7. Further, the materials available on record disclose the commission of a cognizable offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Therefore, the plea that the case is false or concocted cannot be accepted at this stage. Consequently, the prayer for quashment of the FIR, charge-sheet, and the criminal proceedings is devoid of merit and is hereby rejected. 8. Accordingly, the instant CRMP is dismissed, at motion stage. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti