1 2026:CGHC:8009-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 608 of 2023 Krishna Kumar Tiwari S/o Nandeshwar Tiwari Aged About 52 Years R/o Bhiyapara, P.S. Lakhanpur, District - Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station Lakhanpur, District - Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Jaichand S/o Rijhan Ram Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Chando, Lakhanpur, Ambikapur (Sarguja), District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : None For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13/02/2026 1. In the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the petitioner – Krishna Kumar Tiwari, has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.02.18 17:44:04 +0530 2 Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashment of the First Information Report registered as Crime No.160/2022 at Police Station Lakhanpur, District Sarguja (C.G.), the charge-sheet filed thereupon for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and the consequential proceedings of Special Criminal Case No.59/2022 pending before the Court of Special Judge (Atrocities), Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.). 2. The facts of the case, in brief, as emerges from the pleadings are that, the present petition arises out of registration of FIR bearing Crime No.160/2022 at Police Station Lakhanpur, District Sarguja (C.G.), on the complaint of respondent No.2 – Jaichand. The allegation in the complaint is that he and his deceased father, Rijhan Ram, were maintaining a joint savings bank account bearing No. 604010013935 with Zila Sahkari Kendriya Maryadit Bank, Lakhanpur, along with DMR Cash Account No. 604010151692 and DMR Kind Account No. 404010186442. It is alleged that the father of the complainant expired on 13.08.2019. According to the complainant, after the death of his father, neither did he submit any application before the Aadim Jati Seva Sahkari Samiti, Chando, nor did he withdraw any amount or obtain any loan from the said Bank. Subsequently, upon obtaining account statements through his nephew, he allegedly discovered that an amount totaling Rs. 3 1,88,025/- had been disbursed as loan from the aforesaid accounts on different dates. On enquiry, the complainant alleged that the said loan transactions were fraudulently processed by the then Branch Manager (present petitioner), along with the Society Manager and the cashier of the Bank, without his knowledge or consent and after the death of his father. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered the aforementioned FIR and, after investigation, filed a charge-sheet for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The matter is presently pending as Special Criminal Case No.59/2022 before the Court of Special Judge (Atrocities), Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.). The petitioner, who was posted as Branch Manager at the relevant time, has denied the allegations and has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the FIR, charge- sheet and consequential proceedings. 3. When the matter is called for hearing, none appears on behalf of the petitioner to prosecute or press the present petition, despite repeated calls. No request for adjournment is made and there is no representation on record on behalf of the petitioner. It is further noticed that no interim order has been passed in the present petition at any stage. 4 4. Learned State counsel opposes the present petition and submits that the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences. It is contended that during the course of investigation, sufficient documentary evidence has been collected to prima facie establish the involvement of the present petitioner, who was functioning as Branch Manager at the relevant point of time, in the sanction and disbursement of the disputed loan amounts. After completion of investigation, a detailed charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Ambikapur, upon due consideration of the material available on record, has framed charges against the petitioner on 17.04.2025. It is further submitted that once charges have already been framed, the matter is at the stage of trial and the petitioner has an efficacious remedy to establish his innocence before the trial Court. At this advanced stage, exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not warranted, particularly when the charge-sheet discloses prima facie material and disputed questions of fact are involved which require appreciation of evidence. Hence, the State prays for dismissal of the present petition. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the entire material and the documents annexed with the petition. 6. Having considered the record and noting that none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner on repeated calls, this Court is of the opinion 5 that the petitioner has evidently lost interest in prosecuting the present petition. It is also pertinent to note that no interim protection was ever granted in favour of the petitioner and, as submitted by learned State counsel, charges have already been framed against the petitioner on 17.04.2025 and the matter is proceeding before the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Ambikapur. In view of the continued non-appearance of the petitioner and the advanced stage of the trial, no case is made out for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. 7. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary action. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved