1 / 7 2025:CGHC:19045-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 1484 of 2021 R.K. Sharma S/o Late Shri Satyanarayan Sharma Aged About 62 Years R/o C/17, Sector 1 Avanti Vihar Colony, Telibandha, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Anti Corruption Bureau/ Economic Offences Wing, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate For State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ 28/04/2025 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC for quashment of charge-sheet No.33-A/2020 dated 20.02.2020, (Annexure P-1). 2 / 7 2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that present petitioner was appointed as ‘Sub Engineer’ in the Public Health Engineering Department in the year 1980, he has served more than 30 years of service with promotion on the post of ‘Assistant Engineer’ and, thereafter, attained superannuation on 30/9/2021 as ‘In-charge Executive Engineer’. 3. On 03/06/2016, the respondent-Anti Corruption Bureau conducted a raid in the house of the petitioner at that time, petitioner was working as ‘Assistant Engineer’ in the department. During search, certain cash, ornaments (gold and silver), immovable property papers, various documents of bank accounts and vehicles were seized from the house of the petitioner. Based on seizure, F.I.R was registered against the petitioner. 4. The petitioner had filed Writ petition (Cr.) No.223/2018 before this Court challenging the Crime No.43 registered against him by the respondent for offence under Section 13 (1) (e) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Said writ petition was disposed of on 11/4/2018 with certain direction to the concerned respondent- authorities to consider the representation made by the petitioner. Copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure P-2. 5. After completion of the investigation, respondent/Anti corruption Bureau had filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner under Section 13 (1) (e) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption 3 / 7 Act and, based upon which, learned trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner on 15/10/2018. 6. The petitioner had challenged the order of framing of charges (dated 15/10/2018) before this Court in Criminal Revision No. 352/2019, which was allowed on 24/10/2019 vide Annexure P/3 observing that: “Filing of the Final report by the investigating agency, without verifying the source of income and without placing the facts emerged after the subsequent investigation before the sectioning authority, has caused a serious prejudice to the applicant. When this Court ordered respondent nos.4 and 5 to verify the source of income, it was the bounden duty of respondent Nos.4 and 5 to follow the direction of this court and place all material before the respondent No.2 in W.P.(Cr.) No.223/2018 and a fresh prosecution sanction order ought to have been obtained, which they failed to do so. 13. As Consequences, the impugned order dated 15/10/2018 passed by the trial court is set aside. Applicant is discharged from the charges The investigating agency shall follow the direction of this Court in writ petition (Cr.) No. 223/2018 and placed all the material before sanctioning authority and obtain a fresh prosecution sanction order. The special judge shall take cognizance of the offence after filing a fresh order of sanction for prosecution.” 7. The respondent-authority had once again submitted the charge- sheet against the petitioner on 20/2/2020 without complying the order/direction of Court dated 24/10/2019 passed in Criminal Revision No.352/2019. Hence, this petition. 4 / 7 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned charge- sheet dated 20/2/2020 is illegal and contrary to the law, as this Court earlier vide order dated 24.10.2019 in Criminal Revision No. 352/2019, has discharged the petitioner/accused from charges observing that the investigating agency shall follow the order/direction of this Court passed in writ petition (Cr.) No. 223/2018, placed all the material before the sanctioning authority, obtain the fresh prosecution sanction order and the Special Judge shall take cognizance of the offence after filing a fresh order of sanction for prosecution. The letter/memo dated 3/1/2020 was sent to the Law Department for approval/sanction of the prosecution against the petitioner, but the same was not granted as there is no change in the calculation and facts. The report was sent to the Senior Officials and as per their order, charge sheet no.33-A/2020 dated 20/2/2020 was prepared and submitted before the Special judge. Hence, it is prayed that impugned charge-sheet no.33-A/2020 dated 20/2/2020 (Annexure P/1) be quashed/set-aside. 9. On the other, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that, after considering the representation of the petitioner, entire documents alongwith review report was sent to the Sanctioning Authority for obtaining the prosecution sanction against the petitioner again. The Sanctioning Authority reiterated its sanction vide order dated 12/02/2020 in view of the review report as well as 5 / 7 looking to the fact that there is no difference between the previous calculations and the new one and referred back the matter to the answering respondent with an observation as there is no difference in the income, expenditure computation, therefore, re- sanction of the prosecution is not required. Hence it cannot be said that the answering respondent has not complied with the direction/order of this Court. The investigation has been done strictly in accordance with law and after completion of investigation, the final report/charge-sheet has been filed before the trial Court and the trial is in progress. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 11. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS or under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 6 / 7 12. As per reply of the respondent/State, the Sanctioning Authority reiterated its sanction vide order dated 12/02/2020 considering review report and the fact that there is no difference between the previous calculations and the new one and referred back the matter to the answering respondent with an observation as there is no difference in the income, expenditure computation, therefore, re-sanction of the prosecution is not required. 13. In the present case, admittedly, after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed, on the basis of prima facie evidence against the petitioner regarding commission of alleged crime/offence trial Court has taken the cognizance against the petitioner and initiated the trial against him. 14. From perusal of FIR and charge-sheet, it transpires that on 03/06/2016, respondent-Anti Corruption Bureau conducted a raid in the house of the petitioner during search, certain cash, ornaments (gold and silver), immovable property papers, various documents of bank accounts and vehicles have been seized from the house of the petitioner and, thereafter, based upon seizure, F.I.R was registered against the petitioner. Hence, the present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the impugned charge-sheet. 7 / 7 15. For the foregoing reasons/discussions, we do not find it a fit case to quash the charge-sheet bearing No.33-A/2020 dated 20.02.2020, (Annexure P-1). 16. According, the instant petition is hereby dismissed. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice J/-