1 2026:CGHC:15-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 645 of 2025 Smt. Jyoti Babli Kujur W/o Arvind Uraon Aged About 35 Years Occupation- Government Servant (Deputy Collector), At Present Deputy Commissioner, OfÏce Of Commissioner, Tribal Development, Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur C.G., R/o Churcha Colliery, Police Station- Churcha, District Koriya C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Chowki Wadrafnagar, Police Station Basantpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur C.G. 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Law And Legislative Affairs Development, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur C.G. 4 - Vedprakash Pandey S/o Late Shri D.S. Pandey R/o Carmel School, In Front Of Main Gate, Mangal Pandey Ward, Ring Road, Namnakala, At Present Janpad Panchayat, Wadrafnagar, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title Taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Deputy Advocate General BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.01.05 10:50:24 +0530 2 Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 02/01/2026 1. Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks for the following relief(s): “(i) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition filed by the petitioner. (ii) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR 50/2020 dated 30.04.2020 registered at Police Chowki-Wadrafnagar, Police Station, Basantpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) (C.G.) for the offence under Section 467, 468, 420, 409 of IPC and Section 7(1-13) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner. (iii) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 29.10.2025 issued by the Additional Secretary, Chhattisgarh Government, Law and Legislative Work Department, Raipur granting sanction for prosecution against the petitioner in FIR 50/2020 dated 30.04.2020 registered at Police Chowki-Wadrafnagar, Police Station, Basantpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) (C.G.) for the offence under Section 467, 468, 420, 409 of IPC and Section 7(1-13) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner. 3 iv) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to respondent no. 1 to take no coercive steps against the petitioner. (v) Grant any other relief (s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in favour of petitioner may also be granted.” 3. The facts, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner was working as Deputy Collector, District-Balrampur-Ramanujganj and during this period, vide order dated 15.02.2020 the Collector, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj had distributed the work to the petitioner. During posting at the relevant time, the petitioner was allotted the Government Transit Hostel for residing and vide letter dated 30.03.2020 the Upper Collector has directed the petitioner to vacate the allotted Government Transit Hostel. Vide another letter dated 20.03.2020 the Upper Collector allotted one compartment of P.W.D. Rest House to the petitioner. 4. Mr. Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the said Sub-Divisional OfÏcer (Police) namely Dhruvesh Jaiswal had not cooperated with the petitioner during the pandemic period which was convened under the instruction of Collector, Balrampur for maintaining and following pandemic guidelines. The petitioner was posted as Sub- Divisional OfÏcer, Wadrafnagar during Pandemic Covid-19 period, on 22.04.2020 around 8.00 p.m., after patrolling, the petitioner came in her compartment of Rest House, where one unknown person was sitting in the compartment of petitioner near the luggage and goods kept by the petitioner without any permission and intimation to the petitioner, due to which, the petitioner felt uncomfortable and she asked from the employee of rest house about the said unknown person and who has authorized/ allowed him to stay in the compartment allotted to the petitioner and the 4 said employee has informed the petitioner that the SDO(P) namely Dhruvesh Jaiswal has authorized the said unknown person in the compartment allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner was required to go washroom, but as the said unknown person was in the compartment, therefore she was unable to go in washroom. After sometime, the SDO(P) came in the rest house and misbehaved with the petitioner by saying that the said person who was staying in the compartment of petitioner is the relative of SDO(P) Dhruvesh Jaiswal. The said SDO(P) also threatened the petitioner to teach lesson to her and to conduct raid against her and also oust her from the post of Sub-Divisional OfÏcer and told her to show the position and power of police personnel to the petitioner. Thereafter the SDO(P) has taken the said unknown person and his family members in the rest house of Forest Department. Thereafter the petitioner informed the said incident to the Collector, Balrampur and during telephonic conversation, the petitioner came to know that the said unknown person who was staying in the compartment of petitioner was a police personnel of the rank of Superintendent of Police of Uttar Pradesh. After having come to know about the said fact, the petitioner went to the Forest Division Rest House and tendered her apology for which she was duly excused. 5. Mr. Khetrapal further submits that due to the said incident, the petitioner has suffered mental harassment and verbal abuse and her modesty was also outraged and she was defamed in presence of other junior employee by the S.D.O.(P), therefore a complaint was made by the petitioner to the Collector, Balrampur to the above effect on 24.04.2020. On account of aforesaid incident, due to the influence of S.D.O(P) Dhruvesh Jaiswal, the petitioner was transferred from S.D.O., Wadrafnagar to the post of Chief Executive OfÏcer, Janpad Panchayat, Wadrafnagar and 5 subsequently vide order dated 30.04.2020 the petitioner was placed under suspension on the allegation of embezzlement of government money. On the same day i.e. 30.04.2020 a written complaint was filed by respondent No. 4 before the Police Station, Basantpur, where the offences under Sections 467, 468, 420, 409 of IPC and Section 7(1-13) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner were registered against the petitioner and co-accused Ashwini Tiwari in Crime No. 50/2020 on the allegation of embezzlement of public money during the period from 25.07.2014 to 2019. Vide order dated 26.05.2020 the suspension of petitioner was revoked and she was directed to join her duties in alternative post of Collector, Balrampur-Ramanujganj. The departmental enquiry proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and after completion of full fledged department enquiry, vide order dated 28.07.2021 the petitioner has been acquitted from the allegation. 6. Mr. Khetrapal further submits that after acquittal from the departmental enquiry proceedings, vide letter dated 23.03.2023 the S.D.O(P), Wadrafnagar has applied before the Secretary, GAD, Raipur for sanction of prosecution against the petitioner. The co-accused Ashwini Tiwari filed M.Cr.C. No. 2210/2023 before the Hon'ble Court and vide order dated 20.06.2023 the Hon'ble Court has granted bail. The petitioner also filed M.Cr.C.(A) No. 751/2023 before this Hon'ble Court for grant of anticipatory bail and initially the interim protection was granted by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 28.08.2023 and directed the petitioner to cooperate with the prosecution in investigation. The petitioner is duly cooperating with the investigation carried out by the respondent No. 1. However, vide order dated 10.10.2023 the Hon'ble Court dismissed the aforesaid anticipatory bail application of the petitioner. Vide letter dated 07.11.2025 the Upper Collector, Balrampur-Ramanujganj informed the 6 Secretary, GAD, Raipur that there is no proceedings against the petitioner is pending in the OfÏce. The petitioner is carrying pregnancy and the due date of delivery is in the month of April, 2026. The father of petitioner is suffering from cancer and the petitioner is facing great difÏculties to visit from her posting place to the SDO(P) OfÏce, where the investigation is going, therefore the petitioner requested the investigation to be done in the OfÏce of Superintendent of Police, District-Balrampur- Ramanujganj. Vide order dated 29.10.2025 the Additional Secretary, Chhattisgarh Government, Law and Legislative Work Department, Raipur has accorded sanction for prosecution against the petitioner in FIR 50/2020 registered at Police Chowki-Wadrafnagar, Police Station, Basantpur, District-Balrampur-Ramanujganj for the offence under Section 467, 468, 420, 409 of IPC and Section 7(1-13) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that maliciously the petitioner is being prosecuted in false and frivolous criminal case, so somehow torture and harass the petitioner mentally, physically and economically. The essential ingredients of alleged offences are not made out against the petitioner and the impugned prosecution of petitioner is abuse of process of law and it is futile exercise of power. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that there are prima facie evidence against the petitioner with regard to involvement in Crime No. 50/2020 and as such, this petition deserves to be dismissed at this stage. Even otherwise, the investigation has already been completed and the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court. The prosecution sanction has been granted against the petitioner by the competent authority. As such, this 7 petition deserves to be rejected at the threshold. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the entire criminal proceedings are a result of personal animosity between the petitioner and the then SDO(P), Shri Dhruvesh Jaiswal, who had allegedly threatened to falsely implicate her. According to the petitioner, the incident relating to the alleged misbehavior at the Rest House has been maliciously linked with the present FIR. However, upon careful examination, it is evident that the FIR in question was not lodged at the instance of the said SDO(P), but by respondent No. 4, and initially named only co-accused Ashwini Tiwari. The involvement of the petitioner surfaced during the course of investigation, based on materials collected by the investigating agency. 10.The allegations against the petitioner are grave in nature. It is alleged that while discharging her duties as a public servant, the petitioner, in connivance with other government ofÏcials, embezzled a sum of Rs.30,02,449/- by preparing forged work orders during the period 2017– 2018, thereby causing substantial loss to the public exchequer. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner played an active role in the preparation and approval of forged documents. Prima facie, the acts attributed to the petitioner attract offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 420, 409 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 7(1-13) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner has challenged both the registration of the FIR and the sanction for prosecution. Apart from alleging mala fides on account of strained relations with the 8 SDO(P), no substantive ground has been demonstrated to discredit the prosecution case at this stage. 11.It is also relevant to note that the prosecution sanction dated 29.10.2025 has been accorded by the competent authority after due consideration of the material placed before it by the investigating agency. It appears that the sanctioning authority has examined the allegations, the nature of the offences, and the role attributed to the petitioner, and has applied its independent mind before granting sanction. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any procedural irregularity, non-application of mind, or lack of competence of the sanctioning authority. Mere assertion that the sanction has been granted on account of malice or influence, without any supporting material, cannot render the sanction invalid. 12.At the stage of granting sanction for prosecution, the sanctioning authority is not required to conduct a detailed enquiry or record elaborate reasons akin to a judicial order. It is sufÏcient if the authority is satisfied, on a prima facie assessment of the material, that the public servant should be prosecuted. In the present case, considering the serious allegations of embezzlement of public funds and preparation of forged documents, this Court finds no infirmity in the decision of the State to accord sanction for prosecution against the petitioner. 13.Apart from alleging personal hostility with the SDO(P), which by itself does not vitiate either the investigation or the sanction, the petitioner has not raised any ground of substance warranting interference by this Court. No material has been placed on record to show that the prosecution is manifestly attended with mala fides, or that the criminal proceedings are an abuse of the process of law. The pleas raised by the petitioner 9 essentially require appreciation of evidence, which lies squarely within the domain of the trial court. 14.Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution sanction has been rightly accorded by the State in accordance with law, and no ground worth consideration has been raised by the petitioner to justify interference with the impugned sanction or the criminal proceedings at this stage. 15. The law regarding the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction for quashing of criminal proceedings is well settled. The power to quash an FIR, complaint, or charge-sheet is to be exercised sparingly, with great caution, and only in exceptional circumstances. Ordinarily, courts should refrain from interfering with investigations into cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of any offence, the court may exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 16.In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Others (2021 SCC OnLine SC 315), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the power of quashing should be exercised with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. The Court further observed that while considering a petition for quashing, the High Court is not expected to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence or adjudicate upon the reliability or genuineness of the allegations contained in the FIR. 17.On a perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is unable to conclude that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. The allegations disclose a prima facie case warranting prosecution, and 10 the issues raised by the petitioner require appreciation of evidence, which can only be undertaken during trial. 18.In State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal & Others (AIR 1992 SC 604), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has illustratively laid down the categories of cases where the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be exercised. The petitioner has failed to bring her case within any of the parameters so enumerated. Consequently, this Court finds no justification to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the FIR bearing Crime No. 50/2020 or the sanction for prosecution dated 29.10.2025. 19.Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition, the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Brijmohan