1 2025:CGHC:54331-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3125 of 2025 Smt. Rajkumari Kindo W/o Late Abhay Kindo Aged About 48 Years R/o Nehru Nagar Ameri Road, Ps Civil Line Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., P.S.- Civil Line, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, 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 7/11/2025 1. The instant CRMP has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS with the following prayer:- “A. That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned charge sheet filed by the respondent bearing final report no. 504/2019 dated 25.10.2019 in FIR no. 74 of 2018 dated 20.01.2018 under Section 409, 420, 467 and 471 of the IPC, JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.11.07 16:11:55 +0530 2 along with impugned order dated 22.11.2019 taken the cognizance of the impugned charge sheet filed by the respondent bearing final report no. 504/2019 dated 25.10.2019 in FIR no. 74 of 20118 dated 20.01.2018 under Section 409, 420, 467 and 471 of the IPC. (Annexure P/1). B. That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside impugned order dated 27.11.2024 frame charge under Section 409, 420, 467 and 471 of the IPC against the petitioner without considering the objection of the petitioner. (Annexure P/2) C. That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside the consequential proceedings going on in criminal Case No. 4420 of 2019, before, Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Bilaspur under Section 409, 420, 467 and 471 of the IPC. D. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the Petitioner, in the interest of justice. An affidavit in support of is filed herewith.” 2. The facts of the case is that the petitioner, a Scheduled Tribe woman, was appointed in the Police Department on compassionate grounds and assigned to the Accounts Section. In 2013, excess Travelling Allowance amounts were credited to the accounts of 34 employees, including the petitioner. A departmental inquiry conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police in 2018 wherein certain irregularities in TA bills were found and held the petitioner, as the then in-charge of the TA Branch, responsible for bill alterations. After a delay of nearly five years, the Police 3 Department lodged FIR No. 74/2018 dated 20.01.2018 under Sections 409, 420, 467, and 471 IPC, and later filed Charge Sheet No. 504/2019 dated 25.10.2019. Cognizance was taken on 22.11.2019, and charges were framed on 27.11.2024 in Criminal Case No. 4420/2019. No prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. According to the petitioner, all 34 employees’ accounts were credited with excess amounts, and recoveries were made through departmental proceedings. The petitioner has already been punished by demotion. No evidence of dishonest intention or mens rea exists against her. Lodging of the FIR solely against the petitioner, after departmental recovery and punishment, is arbitrary, delayed, and amounts to abuse of process. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of nearly five years from the alleged incident of 2013, rendering the prosecution doubtful. The petitioner has been arbitrarily singled out despite 34 employees having received excess Travelling Allowance, making the action mala fide and discriminatory. It is further contended that the petitioner, a Scheduled Tribe woman appointed on compassionate grounds without accounting experience, had no dishonest intention or mens rea, and the allegations at best relate to administrative irregularities for which recovery and departmental punishment have already been effected. The 4 continuation of criminal proceedings thus amounts to double jeopardy and harassment. The orders of cognizance and charge framing have been passed mechanically, and no prosecution witness has been examined even after years of pendency, violating the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial under Article 21. Hence, the FIR, charge sheet, and all consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the petition and submits that the FIR and subsequent proceedings have been rightly initiated based on the findings of the departmental inquiry, which clearly established that excess Travelling Allowance amounts were withdrawn through manipulation of official records while the petitioner was in charge of the TA Branch. It is contended that the petitioner’s role was central to the preparation and processing of the disputed bills, and the inquiry as well as the investigation reveal sufficient material to justify prosecution under Sections 409, 420, 467, and 471 IPC. In respect of delay in lodging the FIR, it is argued, the same occurred due to the detailed departmental verification process and does not vitiate the proceedings. The State further submits that the question of mens rea and culpability are matters of evidence to be tested during trial, and therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed at the threshold under Section 482 CrPC. 5 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. In pursuance of last order dated 14.10.2025 of this court, Director General of Police, C.G. has filled his affidavit. Perusal of the same goes to show that the failure to duly execute the summons and the bailable warrant amounts to dereliction of duty and is obedience of the Court’s order. Consequently, departmental action has been taken against the responsible officials, and preventive punishment has been imposed upon the police officials who were witness and did not appear before the Trial court for recording of evidence. It further states that the department has taken the entire matter seriously and duly notes the contents of the petition and give assurance that accordingly, as per the schedule fixed by the learned trial court, the remaining witnesses shall be duly produced for their examination. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds no ground to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. The allegations against the petitioner arise from an official inquiry that revealed manipulation in Travelling Allowance bills during the period when the petitioner was in charge of the TA Branch. The delay in lodging the FIR has been reasonably explained as arising from the time taken in departmental verification. The issues raised by the petitioner, including the question of mens rea, involvement, and extent of 6 responsibility, are matters of evidence to be tested during trial and cannot be adjudicated at this stage. The material collected during investigation prima facie discloses offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, and 471 IPC. Therefore, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. 8. However, this Court hopes and trust that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 9. It is made clear that the police personnel, who are witnesses in the present crime, as per undertaking given by the Director General of Police in his affidavit, are directed to appear before the trial Court to adduce their evidence as and when directed, failing which the salary of the concerned police personnel be stopped. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti