1 2025:CGHC:57399-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3594 of 2025 Satyanand Baank S/o Shri Banshilal Aged About 49 Years R/o Village - Utekel, P.S. Sankara, Tehsil - Pithora, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Sankara, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Chandraprakash Manhar S/o Shri Gangadeen Manhar Aged About 53 Years R/o Office of Chief Executive Office, Janpad Pithora, Pithora, Tehsil - Pithora, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Bajrang Agrawal and Ms. Kiran Sahu, Advocates For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 26.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Bajrang Agrawal and Ms. Kiran Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers :- ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 “It is, therefore, prayed that the Petition may kindly be allowed and the charge-sheet in Final Report No. 51/2025, under sections 420, 34, 120-B, 407, 409, 419 of the IPC (Annexure P/1) and order taking cognizance dated 17.10.2025 (Annexure P/1), passed in Criminal Case No. 1643/2025, under Sections 420, 34, 120-B, 407, 409, 419 of the IPC, by the Court of learned JMFC Pithora, District-Mahasamund (C.G.), may kindly be quashed (only in respect of petitioner herein), in the interest of justice.” 3. The case of prosecution in anecdote is that, on 10.12.2024, complainant/ respondent No.2 Chandraprakash Manhar, employed as CEO, Janpad Panchayat Pithora, District- Mahasamund, appeared before the Police Station and submitted a written complaint. It was alleged therein that under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Gramin) for the financial year 2020-21, the benefit meant for an approved beneficiary, Smt. Premshila, wife of Late Harihar Bank, resident of Village Utekel, Janpad Panchayat Pithora, was fraudulently diverted and granted to another person of the same name, Smt. Premshila, wife of Vikas Baank, resident of Village Utekel. It was further alleged that this wrongful allotment was done by the officials of Janpad Panchayat Pithora in connivance with the then Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Utekel, Smt. Janaki Baank, Secretary Satyanand Baank, Data Entry Operator Shashi Bhushan Bariha, Mate Sanjay Yadu, and the ineligible beneficiary Smt. Premshila, wife of Vikas Bank, and that strict legal action be taken against the persons responsible. 3 4. On the basis of the said written complaint, an FIR No. 164/2024, under Sections 420, 34, 120-B, 407, 409 & 419 of IPC was registered. During investigation, relevant documents were seized, witnesses were examined, site inspection was conducted, and memorandum statements were recorded and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was presented against accused persons including the present petitioner on 02.02.2025 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pithora, District – Mahasanumd and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance vide impugned order dated 17.10.2025. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the charge-sheet and Final Report No. 51/2025 (Annexure P/1) and the order taking cognizance dated 17.10.2025 (Annexure P/1) and its proceeding is/are liable to be quashed, in respect to the petitioner, for the substantial reason that the petitioner was not the in-charge or was employee when the amount was disbursed to the imposter beneficiary from 29.05.2023 onwards (29.05.2023, 14.08.2023, 04.11.2023, 04.12.2023) during the period under which the offence was committed and the same can be perceived from the document filed as Annexure P/2 and the relevant documents filed by the prosecution agency in the charge-sheet. So, the prosecution against the petitioner is liable to be quashed, as the petitioner cannot be held under vicarious liability principle in the criminal case. He further argued that the petitioner is victimized and has been falsely roped in the instant F.I.R. 4 Perhaps, the prosecution agency very well knew this fact that the petitioner has rightly approved the beneficiary through a Resolution to the actual name and when the petitioner was transferred on 21.12.2022 (Annexure P/2), then the co-accused have implanted the imposter (co-accused Premshila, W/o. Vikas Baank) in place of actual beneficiary and the money was released thereafter. So, the final report and order taking cognizance (Annexure P/1) against the petitioner is liable to be set aside, in the interest of justice. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondent No.1 opposes this petition and submits that at the time of passing of alleged Resolution, on the basis of which, the amount has been disbursed in the name of co-accused Premshila, W/o. Vikas Baank instead of actual beneficiary, the petitioner was holding the substantive post of Gram Panchayat Secretary and he has also the signatory of the said Resolution. He further submits that since after due investigation, charge-sheet has already been submitted against the petitioner and perusal of the materials on record discloses commission of cognizable offence, as such, no interference is warranted at this stage in view of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021 (M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others) and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 5 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 9. It has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, that the proceedings relating to cognizable offences cannot be interfered except on certain grounds enumerated by the Apex Court in the said judgment. It is evident that, none of the grounds mentioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment are attracted in the present case. In State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani & others reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of cognizable ofence, there is no 6 other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR. Also what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence. 10. From perusal of the contents of the FIR as well as in the charge- sheet, it transpires that under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana Gramin, in the financial year 2020-21, instead of the approved beneficiary Smt. Premshila, wife of Shri Harihar Bank, village Utekel, Janpad Panchayat Pithora, another beneficiary Smt. Premshila, wife of Vikas Bank, village Utekel, Janpad Panchayat Pithora, was given benefit under the housing scheme by Janpad Panchayat Pithora and during investigation of the case, it was found that on 26.01.2021, in the Gram Sabha of Gram Panchayat Utekel, Mrs. Janaki Bank, Sarpanch, approved the construction of Prime Minister's house for Mrs. Premshila, wife of late Harihar Bank, who had been residing in another Gram Panchayat for many years, and the house was constructed in the name of ineligible beneficiary Mrs. Premshila, wife of Vikas Bank. In this way, by getting the Prime Minister's Housing approved in the name of eligible beneficiary Smt. Premshila, wife of late Harihar Bank, the Prime Minister's Housing was allotted to ineligible beneficiary Smt. Premshila Bank, wife of Vikas Bank, and fraudulently benefited through wrongful means. In which Gram Panchayat Utekel Sarpanch Neemati Janaki Bak, Gram Utekel Secretary Satyanand Bank, Data Entry Operator Shashi Bhushan 7 Bariha, Mate Sanjay Yadav, ineligible beneficiary Premshila Bank, wife of Vikas Bank, by conspiring together, fraudulently provided the benefit of Prime Minister's Rural Housing scheme of public importance to a close ineligible beneficiary. 11. On the basis of aforesaid allegation levelled against the petitioner, this Court cannot come to a conclusion that prima facie, no case is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner will have every opportunity before the learned Trial Court to rebut the allegations levelled against him. This Court cannot examine or appreciate the evidences that may be led before the learned Trial Court and stalling the trial would be wholly unjustified. Further, in light of what has been said by the Supreme Court in Bhajanlal (supra) and Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra), there appears to be no good ground for quashing of the charge-sheet. 12. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra