1 2025:CGHC:58766-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3675 of 2025 Omprakash Nayak S/o Shri Pyarelal Nayak Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Dongaripali, P.S. Sankara, Tehsil - Pithora, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sankara, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 2 - Pramod Manjhi S/o Shri Dolamani Manjhi Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 05, Kaushalya Vihar Colony, Basna, Tehsil - Basna, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 04.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, 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. 135/2025, under sections 316(3), 316(5), 318(3), 3(5) of the BNS (Annexure P/1) and order taking cognizance dated 28.10.2025 (Annexure P/1), passed in Criminal Case No. 1657/2025, under Sections 316(3), 316(5), 318(3), 3(5) of the BNS, 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 29.08.2025, the complainant Pramod Manjhi had lodged a written report stating that during an inspection conducted by his team at the Paddy Procurement Centre, Dongripali (attached to Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society, Jerabhan, P.K. No. 877), a substantial shortage of stock was detected. During the inspection, it was found that 4426.78 quintals of paddy were short, and 10,293 bags of gunny sacks (bardana) were missing valued in total at approximately Rs.1,39,80,343/-. During the course of enquiry, it was revealed that the irregularities were committed by the persons working as In-charges of the Dongripali Procurement Centre, who, in connivance with each other, fraudulently showed excess procurement of 4426.78 quintals of paddy in the names of farmers without any actual purchase. The accused persons further misappropriated the sale proceeds of such falsely shown procurement through the farmers' accounts, thereby committing fraud and criminal misappropriation. On the basis of the written complaint, an FIR No.132/2025, under Sections 316(3), 316(5), 3 318(3), 3(5) of the BNS was registered against the petitioner and co-accused Bharat Manjhi and the matter was taken up for investigation. Statements of the complainant and witnesses were recorded, who confirmed the incident in their depositions. Relevant registers and documents were duly seized. Accused Bharat Manjhi was interrogated in police custody and documents pertaining to the offence were seized on the basis of his memorandum statement. 4. Co-accused Bharat Manjhi and petitioner were found to have jointly committed the said irregularities during paddy procurement for the marketing year 2024-25 at the Dongripali Procurement Centre. Accordingly, co-accused Bharat Manjhi was arrested on 30.08.2025 and remanded to judicial custody, and the petitioner was released on anticipatory bail by the order of this Court in MCRC(A) No. 1479/2025, vide order dated 24.09.2025. 5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was presented against co-accused Bharat Manjhi including the present petitioner on 27.10.2025 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pithora, District – Mahasanumd and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance vide impugned order dated 28.10.2025. Hence, this petition. 6. Mr. Surfaraj Khan, 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 4 (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 working at the time when the alleged commission of offence was taken place i.e. 24.11.2024 to 18.04.2025. He further submits that vide order dated 14.11.2024, the authorized officer of the Prathmik Krishi Saakh Sahkari Samiti Mariyadit Jerabharan (Reg. No. 877) (hereinafter referred to as "Samiti") had appointed co-accused Bharat Manjhi as in-charge of the Samiti for paddy purchase. Even the Panchnama was prepared in presence of authorized officer and others by handing over the charge of the Samiti to the petitioner herein on 14.04.2025 and thereafter, the petitioner took the charge. The shortage of paddy was already mentioned in the Panchnama before handing over the charge to the petitioner herein. A copy of Panchnama dated 14.04.2025 is filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P/4. He also submits that even the petitioner after taking over the charge had filed a complaint about the sudden disappearance of co-accused Bharat Manjhi and the deficiency in the stock of purchase paddy on 22.04.2025 to the Police Station- Sankara. A copy of written complaint dated 22.04.2025 is filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P/5. 7. Mr. Khan submitted that on 02.04.2025 itself, the petitioner has also informed about the sudden disappearance of co-accused Bharat Manjhi and the deficiency of stock to the Branch Manager of Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mariyadit, Branch- Sankara. A copy 5 of written report made by the petitioner to the office of Branch Manager, Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mariyadit, Sankara is filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P/6. He further submitted that even in the charge-sheet, the Panchnama dated 21.05.2025 was prepared at Paddy Procurement Centre Dongripali, wherein in the panchnama itself, it was found that there was deficiency and the deficiency occurred because of co-accused Bharat Manjhi, who was not present at the date of preparing Panchnama. Even the bank statement of co-accused Bharat Manjhi is seized and is a part of charge-sheet, which goes to show that the entire amount was transferred in the account of Bharat Manjhi. 8. Mr. Khan contended that the Society is governed by the law known as Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, ‘the Act of 1960’) and Section 58-B deals with the enquiry as to what will be the procedure for making good losses caused to a society and for conducting the enquiry, it is only the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is authorized to hold an enquiry as per Section 58-B of the Act of 1960 and then only, any action can be taken against the person, who has caused losses to a society and Section 76 of the Act of 1960 deals with cognizance of offences and sub-section (2) of Section 76 of 1960 deals with previous sanction in writing of the Registrar and as such, lodging of an F. I. R. filing of charge-sheet and order taking cognizance (Annexure P/1), against the petitioner, amounted to over reach the jurisdiction and proceedings prescribed under the Act of 1960 6 because the petitioner has not committed any crime. The intervention of police machinery and that there could not be still bigger case of abuse of criminal process warranting quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner. He also submits that the material available on the record does not constitute an offence punishable under sections 316(3), 316(5), 318(3), 3(5) of the BNS, against the petitioner because there is no prima-facie case against the petitioner and it will be futile exercise for the prosecution to initiate a criminal proceeding against the petitioner and the precious time of the Court can be saved and criminal prosecution any further will be a clear abuse of the process of law, in respect to the petitioner, hence, the same be quashed so far as it relates to the petitioner. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 opposes this petition and submits that the contention of the petitioner that the alleged crime was committed by the co-accused Bharat Manjhi only, whereas the petitioner was not working at the time when the alleged commission of offence was committed is misconceived as there is no documentary proof that when the petitioner was appointed as Committee Manager (Samiti Prabandhak) except the so-called Panchnama which was prepared on 21.05.2025. He further submits that so far as contention of the petitioner that it is only the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is authorized to hold an enquiry as per Section 58-B of the Act of 1960 and then only, any 7 action can be taken against the person, who has caused losses to a society is concerned, there is no bar for lodging FIR without conducting any enquiry the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. He also 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. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 11. 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 8 offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 12. 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 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. 13. From perusal of the contents of the FIR as well as in the charge- sheet, it transpires that regarding the shortage of paddy stock in the paddy procurement center Dongripali Six of Primary Agricultural Credit Society Limited Jerabharan P.K. 877, an investigation was conducted by the team consisting of the complainant, who was posted as Branch Manager in District Cooperative Limited Central Bank, Sankara, in which shortage of 4426.78 quintals of coarse paddy and 10293 pieces gunny bags were found missing in the paddy procurement center. The total value of which was found to be Rs. 1,39,80,343/-. During the 9 course of enquiry, it was revealed that the irregularities were committed by the computer operator of paddy procurement center Dongripali Six, Mr. Bharat Manjhi and in-charge i.e. Committee Manager Omprakash Nayak, in connivance with each other, fraudulently showed excess procurement of 4426.78 quintals of paddy in the names of farmers without any actual purchase. The accused persons further misappropriated the sale proceeds of such falsely shown procurement through the farmers' accounts fraudulently embezzled paddy and gunny bags worth Rs. 1,39,80,343, thereby committed fraud and criminal misappropriation. 14. On a pointed query being asked from learned counsel for the petitioner as to when he was posted as in-charge i.e. Committee Manager, where is his appointment order, he could not give any satisfactory explanation and also not provided any appointment order, though he has placed reliance on the so-called Panchnama which was prepared on 21.05.2025, which is also a part of the charge-sheet, thus the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that the alleged crime was committed by the co-accused Bharat Manjhi only, whereas the petitioner was not working at the time when the alleged commission of offence was committed is misconceived as there is no documentary proof that when the petitioner was appointed as Committee Manager (Samiti Prabandhak) except the so-called Panchnama which was prepared on 21.05.2025. 10 15. So far as contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is only the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is authorized to hold an enquiry as per Section 58-B of the Act of 1960 and then only, any action can be taken against the person, who has caused losses to a society is concerned, there is no bar for lodging FIR without conducting any enquiry the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Further, it transpires 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 16. 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. 17. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra