1 2025:CGHC:8106-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 577 of 2025 Punni Lal Kurre S/o. Late Firtu Kurre Aged About 63 Years R/o. Shanti Nagar, Behind Siddh Shikhar Apartment, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Ratanpur, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Dinesh Kumar Kaushik S/o. S.N. Kaushik The Then Posted as District Education OfÏcer, Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) (Complainant) ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. K.K. Pandey and Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocates. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. K.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the through video conferencing along with Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey. Also heard BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.02.18 15:38:36 +0530 2 Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 1/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “I. Quash the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 709 of 2022 registered at Police Station, Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence under Section 420, 34 and 409 of the IPC against the petitioner. II. Quash the impugned Final Report No. 724 of 2024 submitted by the Police Station, Ratanpur before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) against the petitioner for the offence under Section 420, 409 and 34 of the IPC against the petitioner. III. Quash the entire criminal proceedings pending in Criminal Case No. 2774 of 2024 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 420, 409 and 34 of the IPC against the petitioner. IV. Set-aside/quash the impugned FIR No. 709 of 2022 registered at Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409 and 34 of the IPC. V. Grant any other relief, which may be deemed fit in 3 given facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while working on the post of Lecturer, an order for recovery was issued against the petitioner on 20.06.2022, whereby the District Education OfÏcer (respondent No. 2 therein) directed the petitioner to deposit the excess payment of Rs.8,00,859/- made to the petitioner during his service tenure. Thereafter, within a week from the date of issuance of order dated 22.06.2022, on 24.06.2022, the Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Beltara sent a query letter in the whatsapp number of petitioner and asked from the petitioner that he has received the arrears amount of Rs. 52,52,177/- or not received the same. The respondent No. 2 has also forwarded the said query letter to the Station House OfÏcer, Police Station, Ratanpur, thereby without any approval or sanction of higher authority, the said Principal has also tried to take panel action against the petitioner. He also submits that being aggrieved by the above recovery orders dated 20.06.2022 and 24.06.2022, the petitioner has preferred writ petition bearing WPS No.4537 of 2022 before the Court and vide order dated 29.06.2022, the Hon'ble Court was kind enough to stay the effect and operation of recovery orders. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while issuing the order for recovery, no details of excess payment has been given by the authority as and when the excess payment has been to the petitioner. He also submits that, even if any excess payment has been made to the petitioner during his service, then also the petitioner is not responsible, as the petitioner has not received any excess payment by 4 way of fraud or misappropriation. After staying the order of recovery, the respondent No. 2 had lodged written report at Police Station, Ratanpur, alleging that the petitioner has fraudulently received the amount of Rs.77,71,932/- in the name of arrears while he was posted as Lecturer in Government Higher Secondary School, Beltara and the said arrears amount was paid by the then Assistant Grade-II, namely, Kailash Suryawanshi as well as the then Incharge Principal, namely, Pyare Lal Maravi (now dead). On the basis of above written report, the offence under Sections 420, 409 and 34 of the IPC have been registered against the petitioner and Kailash Suryawanshi in Crime No. 709 of 2022 at Police Station, Ratanpur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that a departmental enquiry has also been initiated against the petitioner on account of alleged excess payment of Rs. 77,71,932/- by serving charge-sheet upon the petitioner and the departmental enquiry is also pending against the petitioner. At the same time, the department has proceeded for recovery of alleged excess payment, initiated departmental proceedings and also prosecuting the petitioner in the instant criminal proceedings. He further stated that upon completion of investigation, the Station House OfÏcer, Police Station, Ratanpur has submitted final report before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kota, District-Bilsapur on 13.12.2024. Upon submission of charge-sheet, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kota, District-Bilsapur has registered the Criminal Case No. 2774 of 2024 and the same is pending before the learned trial Court. The petitioner has filed an afÏdavit given his consent before the department and the alleged excess payment of Rs. 77,71,932/- be adjusted from the aforesaid dues 5 payable to the petitioner, as the petitioner is not in a position to arrange such huge amount, because he has not received salary of 02 years past and after retirement, he is not getting any pension and further upon retirement, the dues payable to the petitioner has not been received. Thereafter, the petitioner has made several representations before the department for adjusting the alleged excess payment against the dues payable to the petitioner. 6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the co-accused, Kailash Chandra Suryawanshi has also been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 127 of 2023. He also contended that the petitioner applied for grant of anticipatory bail before the learned trial Court, which was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for grant of anticipatory bail before this Court, which was registered as MCRCA No. 1817 of 2022 and vide order dated 09.01.2023, this Court grant the anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He would submit that as the petitioner could not be deposited the alleged excess payment before the department within time, therefore, the petitioner filed CRMP No. 250 of 2023 before this Court for extension of time to deposit the disputed amount. The said petition came up for hearing before this Court on 23.01.2025 and the same was dismissed by this Court. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner further stated that upon the attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner has been retired from service with effect from 31.10.2023. After the order of this Court in bail petition., the petitioner has deposited Rs. 2,00,000/- through Bank draft. The aforesaid amount payable to the petitioner, the respondent authorities 6 have also not paid pension to the petitioner since last 15 months, whichis total amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- approximate. He further submits that the petitioner has not received any excess payment by playing any fraud or cheating and he has also not committed any criminal breach of trust, therefore, the impugned prosecution of the petitioner being unsustainable in the eyes of law, deserves to be quashed. Hence, this petition. 8. On the other, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that 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. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 10. 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. 11. In the present case, admittedly, after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner and upon 7 finding prima facie evidence regarding commission of offences the trial has been initiated against the petitioner. 12. From perusal of the FIR and charge-sheet, it transpires that in the financial year 2018-19, about 20 times, different amounts were credited in the saving account as well as GPF account of the present petitioner, amounting to Rs. 77,71,932/- and the petitioner had also used the said amount after withdrawal. During departmental enquiry, it was revealed that the present petitioner, while working as Lecturer, with the connivance of Kailash Suryavanshi, AG-II, has embezzled the said amount, therefore, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence, the present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS or under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 13. In view of the above, we do not find it a fit case to quash the FIR bearing Crime No. 709 of 2022 dated 19.12.2022 and charge-sheet No.724 of 2024 dated 13.12.2024 filed by the Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 34 and 409 of the IPC and the consequential criminal proceedings bearing Criminal Case No. 2774 of 2024 pending before the trial Court, as such, this petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan