1 2025:CGHC:56714-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3532 of 2025 Manoj Kumar Sahu S/o Govind Ram Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Birra, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2. Abhimanyu Kashyap S/o A.S. Kashyap Posted As Assistant Engineer Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company, Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ishan Verma, 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 21/11/2025 1. Heard Mr. Ishan Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. for the State. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.11.22 12:00:05 +0530 2 2. The instant CRMP has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS with the following prayer:- “A. Quash and set aside the FIR bearing Crime No. 46/2021, for offence under Section 409,420 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, dated 30/01/2021, registered at Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh i.e., Annexure P-1. B. Quash and set aside the charge sheet dated 02.11.2024, bearing No. 494/2024 for offence under Section 409,420 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 filed against the Petitioner herein i.e., Annexure P-2. C. Quash and set aside the order dated 20.11.2024 order of taking cognizance and order of framing charge dated 06.03.2025 under Section 409,420 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and subsequent proceedings related to Criminal Case No. 11279/2024 pending before Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh against the petitioner herein i.e., Annexure P-3.” 3. The facts of the case is that an FIR bearing Crime No. 46/2021 dated 30.01.2021 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur, under Sections 409, 420 and 34 of the IPC. The petitioner, who is serving as a Line Assistant (Contract Basis) in the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Masturi, has been implicated in an alleged financial irregularity involving Rs. 24,44,827/-, said to have occurred due to the transfer of dues of 186 non-agricultural electricity consumers into the agricultural category, causing financial loss to the department. During the departmental inquiry, statements of several consumers and staff members were 3 recorded, attributing alleged monetary transactions to various employees, including meter readers, departmental staff, and external personnel. Based on these allegations, a charge-sheet dated 02.11.2024 bearing No. 494/2024 was filed, and Criminal Case No. 11279/2024 was instituted before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, wherein cognizance was taken on 20.11.2024; however, no witness has been examined till date. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR dated 30.01.2021 was registered without proper preliminary inquiry, leading to baseless allegations that have adversely affected the petitioner’s reputation. It is argued that no prima facie evidence exists to establish the alleged offences and that earlier complaints made by certain consumers were already rejected by the Electricity Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum on the ground that the receipts produced were counterfeit. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner, being a contractual Line Assistant, had no authority to collect payments or issue receipts, and the documents relied upon in the charge-sheet do not pertain to the petitioner, nor do they bear his signatures. It is contended that the proceedings are malicious, delayed, and devoid of substantive evidence, and have been initiated with mala fide intent. Hence, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR, charge- sheet, and all consequential proceedings. 5. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made and 4 submits that the FIR and charge-sheet have been registered after due investigation and on the basis of material collected from multiple consumers and departmental records, which disclose the petitioner’s involvement in financial irregularities causing loss to the Electricity Distribution Company to the tune of Rs. 24,44,827/-. The State counsel contends that the petitioner’s claim of lack of authority to collect payments is a matter of defence that cannot be adjudicated at this stage. It is further submitted that allegations of counterfeit receipts and disputed signatures are factual matters requiring trial. It is argued that the investigation was conducted impartially, the charge-sheet has been filed on the basis of corroborative material, and the proceedings before the Trial Court should be allowed to continue. Hence, the prayer for quashing the FIR and charge-sheet is strongly opposed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. Having considered the submissions of both sides and upon perusal of the case records and material placed on record, this Court finds no ground to invoke its inherent jurisdiction for quashing the FIR, charge-sheet, or subsequent proceedings. The allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of cognizable offences and are supported by statements of multiple consumers and departmental personnel, which constitute sufficient material for the Trial Court to proceed. There are allegation against the present petitioner in respect of receipt of payment towards two 5 bills. The petitioner’s contentions regarding absence of authority to collect payments, disputed signatures, and the alleged falsity of receipts are matters of defence that require appreciation of evidence and cannot be adjudicated at this stage. The issues raised by the petitioner pertain to factual disputes that must be examined during trial. In view of the prima facie material collected during investigation and the specific allegations indicating financial irregularities causing loss to the department to the tune of Rs. 24,44,827/-, no case for quashing the proceedings is made out. 8. Accordingly, the CRMP is found to be devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti