1 2025:CGHC:53551-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1319 of 2023 Rama (As Per The F.I.R. And Challan), S/o Gajraj Aged About 61 Years R/o. Village Sapkara (Gondhiyapara), Post Dadri, P.S. And Tahsil Surajpur, Revenue And Civil, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bishrampur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Brijlal Rajwade, S/o. Dhansai Rajwade, Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Namadgiri, P.S. And Tehsil Surajpur, Revenue And Civil, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma For Resp No. 2 None, despite service of notice Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J 03/11/2025 RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.11.04 10:11:56 +0530 2 1. The instant CRMP under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C has been preferred for the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that the petition may kindly be allowed and the entire proceeding in Criminal Case No. 1674/2016 (Annexure-P/1), pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Surajpur, arising out of FIR No. 187/2016 (Annexure-P/1), registered at Police Station- Bishrampur, District Surajpur (C.G.), may kindly be quashed, in the interest of justice.” 2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition seeking quashment of the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Criminal Case No. 1674/2016 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.), which emanates from FIR No. 187/2016 registered at Police Station Bishrampur for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The said FIR was lodged by Respondent No. 2 on 20.08.2016 alleging that the petitioner had obtained employment in the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (S.E.C.L.) by falsely representing his caste status. It was alleged that though the petitioner belongs to the ‘Rajwar’ community, he impersonated himself as a member of the ‘Gond’ Scheduled Tribe in order to secure employment, which had been granted on the basis of land acquisition compensation. Subsequently, upon registration of the FIR, the investigating agency filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P. (Cr.) No. 339/2016, challenging the very same criminal proceedings, in which, by order dated 14.12.2016, further 3 proceedings in the said criminal case were stayed. The interim protection continued till 08.05.2023, when this Court, while disposing of the said writ petition, granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the charge-sheet by taking recourse to appropriate legal remedy. Meanwhile, the petitioner was enlarged on bail by order dated 24.11.2016 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 7314/2016, and has since retired from service. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR has been maliciously registered on the allegation that the petitioner fraudulently obtained a caste certificate and is serving in S.E.C.L. on that basis. It is urged that the petitioner was duly issued a caste certificate in 1993 declaring him as belonging to the ‘Gond’ community, which remains valid unless cancelled by the competent authority under the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes & Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013. Referring to Sections 4, 6, 18 and 20 of the Act and the State Government’s Instruction dated 24.09.2013, it is contended that only the District Level Caste Certificate Verification Committee has the jurisdiction to verify or cancel a caste certificate, and any inquiry by the police or criminal court is without authority of law. It is further contended that even if the FIR and charge-sheet are taken at face value, no offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 or 120-B IPC is made out. The proceedings, founded on conjecture and mala fides, constitute a colourable exercise of power and an abuse of criminal process. Therefore, entire criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the FIR was lodged on a written complaint alleging that the petitioner, belonging to the “Rajwar” caste, 4 impersonated himself as “Gond” to secure employment in S.E.C.L. Upon disclosure of cognizable offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, a fair and proper investigation was conducted, witnesses were examined, and relevant materials were collected. Finding sufficient evidence, the charge sheet was filed before the competent Court, cognizance was taken, and charges have been framed. 5. None appears on behalf of the Complainant/respondent No.2, despite service of notice. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced by both sides and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the substratum of the allegations in the FIR pertains to the caste status of the petitioner, which forms the basis of his employment in S.E.C.L. The petitioner was issued a caste certificate in 1993 certifying him as belonging to the ‘Gond’ community. There is no material on record to show that the said certificate has been cancelled or declared invalid by the competent authority under the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes & Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013. 8. Section 4 of the said Act provides for issuance of caste certificates by the Competent Authority, while Section 6 establishes the District Level Caste Certificate Verification Committee and empowers it to verify, cancel or confiscate a certificate found to be obtained fraudulently. Further, Section 18 5 clarifies that the provisions of the Act are in addition to, and not in derogation of, other laws, but the authority to verify or cancel a caste certificate has been specifically vested in the statutory Committee. The Government Instruction dated 24.09.2013 also reinforces this procedure, thereby excluding any independent inquiry by the police or criminal court regarding caste status. 9. In the present case, the FIR and the consequent charge-sheet essentially call into question the genuineness of the caste certificate. When the Act of 2013 provides a complete mechanism for verification and cancellation, the initiation of a criminal case by the police on the same subject matter is without jurisdiction and contrary to the statutory scheme. The police could not have assumed authority to determine the petitioner’s social status, which lies exclusively within the purview of the verification committee. 10. Even if the entire contents of the FIR and charge-sheet are taken at their face value, the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC are not made out. The allegations do not disclose any act of deception or fraudulent misrepresentation independent of the caste certificate itself. Once the certificate stands unrevoked and valid, the foundation of the prosecution crumbles. The record does not reveal any material to indicate that the petitioner obtained employment on the basis of his caste status; rather, it appears that his appointment was made in the category of land oustee. 11. The continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to permitting the investigating agency to exercise powers beyond its jurisdiction and would result in misuse of the criminal process. It has been 6 consistently held by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions that criminal proceedings may be quashed where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not constitute any offence or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides. 12. In the present case, the FIR appears to have been registered without proper verification and with an ulterior motive. The entire dispute is essentially civil or administrative in nature, falling within the statutory jurisdiction of the caste verification authority. Permitting the criminal case to proceed would, therefore, be an abuse of process of law and contrary to the object of Section 482 CrPC, which exists to prevent such misuse and to secure the ends of justice. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1674/2016 arising from FIR No. 187/2016 registered at Police Station Bishrampur, District Surajpur (C.G.), for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, is unwarranted and unsustainable in law. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. The entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1674/2016 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.), arising out of FIR No. 187/2016 registered at Police Station Bishrampur, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, along with the charge-sheet, are hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Gowri