1 2025:CGHC:51565-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3167 of 2025 Harishankar Yadav @ Hari S/o Ramavtar Yadav Aged About 38 Years R/o Satipara Ghutku, P.S. Koni, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. The Director General Of Police Police Department, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4. Station House Officer Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5. Abhishek Sharma S/o Vinod, R/o B-81, Dream City Khamtarai Road, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lekram Dhruw, Advocate For Respondent No. 1/State: Mr. Shailendra Pandey, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.10.16 17:08:03 +0530 2 16/10/2025 1. The instant CRMP has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C with the following prayer:- “1. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023 filed by the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 2. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR bearing No. 385/2025 registered on dated 12.06.2025 at police station Sakri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh filed under section 409, 34 of the I.P.C. and final report No. 377/2025 filed on dated 17.07.2025 in so far as relates to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 3. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash entire charge sheet dated 27.07.2025 before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Bilaspur Chhattisgarh under section 409, 34 of the I.P.C. and taking cognizance order dated 27.07.2025 against the present petitioner in the interest of justice. 4. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned proceeding against petitioner (Annexure P-1) in Criminal Case No. 22060/2025 against the present petitioner, in the interest of justice. 3 5. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly grant any other reliefs in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case in brief is that as per the instructions of the authority, a joint physical verification of the Paddy Procurement Centre, Parita Sahakari Samiti Limited Poti (Putak), under the jurisdiction of the Collector (Food Branch), Bilaspur was conducted on 11.07.2024 by the Food Inspector, Takhatpur, and the Cooperative Singer MARKFED, Bilaspur. The investigation revealed that during the Kharif Marketing Year 2023–24, a total of 55,476.00 quintals of paddy was procured. Out of this, 53,249.23 quintals were delivered, and 2,226.77 quintals were recorded as remaining stock. Upon physical verification at the centre (Podi Ghutku), only 195.77 quintals of paddy were found present, out of which 105.77 quintals (675 bags) were substandard. This led to a shortfall of 2,031.00 quintals of paddy, resulting in a financial loss of Rs. 62,96,100/- to the government. The report concluded that this discrepancy constitutes embezzlement, and prima facie negligence was found on the part of the then officials. On the basis of the above the present FIR was registered against the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case without any direct 4 allegation or material evidence indicating his involvement in the alleged embezzlement of paddy at the Paddy Procurement Centre, Podi Ghutku. It was contended that the petitioner was merely a low-paid computer operator engaged in data entry work as per the instructions of the management and had no role in the procurement, delivery, or storage of the paddy in question. It is further submitted that the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged belatedly on 12.06.2025, despite the incident having allegedly occurred between 01.11.2023 and 31.01.2024, and that such an inordinate delay has not been properly explained by the complainant, thereby raising serious doubts about the credibility of the prosecution’s case. Learned counsel also pointed out that the FIR No. 385/2025 does not name the petitioner, and no specific allegations or findings have been made against him in the enquiry reports dated 14.06.2024 and 11.07.2024 or in the panchnama dated 12.06.2024 and 11.07.2024. It was argued that the petitioner neither received any amount from the alleged embezzlement nor derived any benefit therefrom, and his implication is based purely on suspicion without any cogent material or legal justification. Furthermore, it is submitted that the petitioner has been granted bail by the competent court on 27.07.2025 after due consideration of the material on record, and the continuation of proceedings against him amounts to abuse of process of law. Learned counsel emphasized that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and that the allegations are false, 5 baseless, and concocted. Therefore, he prays for quashment of the FIR, charge-sheet and and further proceedings. 4. Per Contra, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the offence relates to cheating and embezzlement of huge amount of money. However, he would submit that in the case in hand, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the concerned competent court and hence, FIR cannot be quashed at this juncture. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Prima-facie, this Court found that the petitioner has come up before this Court for quashment of FIR and further proceedings which was registered by the complainant/respondent No.5. From bare perusal of the pleadings and the documents, it is evident that the matter relates to cheating and embezzlement of huge amount of money. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State counsel and upon careful consideration of the facts of the case, this Court finds no ground to exercise its inherent powers to quash the FIR or subsequent proceedings. The material placed on record reflects that a significant quantity of paddy, procured under a government-supported scheme, was found to be missing during physical verification, resulting in a substantial 6 financial loss of Rs. 62,96,100/- to the State exchequer, further the fact remains that the charge-sheet has already been filed after due investigation. The petitioner’s name appears in the charge- sheet, and the investigating agency has found prima facie material against him to warrant trial, as the petitioner was working as computer operater in the said society at the time of the incident. Hence, at this stage, the disputed questions of fact and the petitioner’s alleged limited role cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 CrPC. These are matters to be considered by the Trial Court on the basis of evidence. In view of the above and considering the seriousness of the allegations, this Court does not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the criminal proceedings. 8. In that view of the matter, the CRMP is dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti