1 2025:CGHC:53512-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3287 of 2025 Jogeshwar Rajwade S/o Devlal Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Rameshwarpur, Police Outpost-Latori P.S. Jaijainagar, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station E.O.W. and A.C.B. Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Dhaneshwar Ram Paikra S/o Late Shri Puran Ram Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Keshawnagar P.S. Vishrampur Post And Tahsil Surajpur (C.G.) (Complainant) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondent No. 1/State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.11.03 18:03:03 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the charge-sheet bearing Final Report No. 40 of 2025 dated 22.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) in FIR No. 47 of 2025 dated 22.07.2025 registered in P.S. EOW & ACB Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) filed against petitioner for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Criminal Proceedings of Criminal Case No. Spl Prevention of Corruption Act 5 of 2-025 pending before Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant, Dhaneshwar Ram Paikra, submitted a written complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Ambikapur, stating that he had purchased a plot of land bearing Khasra No. 485, area 0.0900 hectare, P.H. No. 25, situated at Village Keshavnagar, in 2003 in the name of his first wife, Smt. Sunita Paikra, and had constructed a house on it in 2004. As he is presently residing with his second wife, the said land was subsequently registered in 2008 in the names of his son, Rupesh Kumar Paikra, and daughter, Chhaya Paikra. After the death of his son in 2018 and the marriage of his daughter, the complainant applied in April 2025 at the Tehsil Office, Surajpur, to have the land mutated in his own name. It is alleged that while pursuing the said mutation, he met the petitioner, Jogeshwar Rajwade, Assistant Grade-II, who demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 30,000/- for completing the process. Upon 3 verification, the petitioner agreed to accept a reduced amount of Rs.25,000/-. Consequently, a trap was organized, and on 21.07.2025, the petitioner was caught red-handed while accepting Rs. 25,000/- from the complainant. The ACB, Ambikapur, thereafter registered Crime No. 0/2025 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act of 1988”). The investigation was subsequently transferred to the Police Station EOW & ACB, Raipur, where Crime No. 47/2025 was registered for the same offence. After completion of investigation, Final Report No. 40/2025 was submitted before the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) on 18.09.2025, and the learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was posted as Assistant Grade-II by order dated 04.07.2025 issued by the Collector, Surajpur, and in pursuance thereof, he assumed charge in the office of S.D.O. (R), Surajpur on 07.07.2025. Therefore, the allegation of demanding illegal gratification is false and baseless. It is contended that the complainant’s name had already been mutated in the revenue record prior to the alleged trap, and as per the documents issued by the Halka Patwari, the Tehsildar had already mutated the name of the complainant on 18.07.2025, i.e., before the date of the raid and even before the written complaint was lodged. 5. It is further contended that the mutation in the name of Dhaneshwar Ram Paikra is evidenced by entries in Form P-II (Khasra 4 Panchshala Khand-1) and Form B-1 (Kishtbandi Khatauni), showing that the records had been duly corrected by the Tehsildar on 18.07.2025. Hence, the petitioner had no role in the mutation proceedings and was not a competent authority to effect such changes. It is urged that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated, and that the respondent authorities failed to verify the authenticity of the complaint. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the investigating agency did not collect any credible material against the petitioner and has falsely implicated him. The alleged audio recording between the complainant and the petitioner, according to him, does not reveal any demand for money. It is also argued that as the petitioner had been transferred on 04.07.2025, he neither possessed authority over the complainant’s work nor could influence the mutation proceedings in any way. 7. It is further urged that the petitioner’s posting at the office of the S.D.O. (R), Surajpur had no nexus with the alleged bribe. The mutation proceedings were already finalized and the complainant’s name was entered in the record on 18.07.2025, much prior to the trap. The Tehsildar was the competent authority for such mutation, and there is no material showing any conspiracy between the petitioner and the Tehsildar. Thus, the essential ingredients of Section 7 of the Act of 1988 are not made out. It is alleged that the petitioner has been made a scapegoat and falsely implicated. 8. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the submissions and 5 contends that the petitioner was apprehended red-handed by the Anti- Corruption Bureau while accepting Rs. 25,000/- from the complainant. It is further submitted that the phenolphthalein test conducted on the petitioner’s hands and clothes yielded positive results, and the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report corroborates this fact. The call detail records (CDRs) and recorded telephonic conversations between the complainant and the petitioner also establish the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The learned State counsel, therefore, asserts that there is ample prima facie evidence against the petitioner, and the case has rightly been committed for trial. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. 10. The legal position regarding quashing of criminal proceedings is well settled. The jurisdiction to quash an FIR, complaint, or charge- sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. Courts ordinarily should not interfere in investigations of cognizable offences. However, if the allegations, even when taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence, or if the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides, the Court may exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, or Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 11. In the present case, after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner, and the learned trial 6 Court has, upon perusal of the material on record, taken cognizance and framed charges against him upon finding prima facie evidence of the commission of offence under Section 7 of the Act of 1988. 12. From the charge-sheet, it is evident that the complainant, Dhaneshwar Ram Paikara, alleged a clear demand and acceptance of bribe by the petitioner. The trap proceedings, FSL report, witness statements, audio recordings, and CDR evidence collectively support the prosecution’s case. The petitioner was apprehended red-handed during the trap operation on 21.07.2025, and all legal formalities were duly completed on the spot. The material on record, therefore, discloses a clear prima facie case. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. Consequently, this case does not fall within the category warranting the exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing of proceedings. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, it is expected that the learned trial Court shall endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan