1 2026:CGHC:7225-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 425 of 2026 Shivdatt Banjare S/o Late Shri Dhani Ram Banjare Aged About 56 Years R/o Village - Surighat, Mungeli, Police Station - City Kotwali, District - Mungeli, (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - City Kotwali, District - Mungeli (C.G.) 2. Santulal Sonkar S/o Late Taturam Sonkar Upper Division Teacher, B.R. Sao School, Mungeli, R/o Pandariya Road, Mungeli, Tahsil and District - Mungeli, (C.G.) 3. Sameer Ahire S/o Late Shri Kalam Prasad Ahire Aged About 42 Years R/o Ambedkar Ward, Padav Para, Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.02.10 16:51:39 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “(i) Allow the instant petition and quash/set aside the impugned order dated 01.12.2025 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) in Criminal Revision Case No.27 of 2025. (ii) Quash the order dated 03.07.2025 filed under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. (now Section 193(9) of BNSS) in favour of respondents No. 2 and 3, or in the alternative, direct parity in treatment by quashing the charge-sheet and proceedings against the petitioner in FIR No. 154 of 2017. (iii) Quash the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner arising out of FIR No. 154 of 2017 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, under Sections 420, 467, 409 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a retired Principal of B.R. Government Multipurpose Higher Secondary School, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.), and is a law- 3 abiding citizen having rendered long years of unblemished service without any criminal antecedents. It is contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case without there being any credible, substantive or legally admissible material connecting him with the alleged offence and that continuation of criminal proceedings against him would result in serious miscarriage of justice. 4. Learned counsel further submits that on 21.03.2017, FIR bearing Crime No. 154/2017 was registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, District Mungeli, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner along with co-accused Vinod Yadav (Sub-Engineer), Santulal Sonkar and Sameer Ahire. The allegations relate to alleged misappropriation of government funds in connection with construction of shops within the school premises without proper authorization. It is submitted that the FIR originated from a complaint lodged by the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Mungeli, alleging diversion and misuse of funds earmarked for development of the school. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner acted strictly in accordance with resolutions passed by the Shala Vikas Samiti dated 12.07.2016 and 15.11.2016, authorizing construction activities for the benefit and development of the institution. It is further submitted that the funds were deposited through cheque in the account of the Municipal Council and valid building permission was duly obtained from the competent authority on 02.02.2017. It is also contended that the petitioner had informed the Station House Officer, City Kotwali, Mungeli, by written communication dated 18.03.2017, 4 confirming compliance with all statutory and procedural requirements. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that aggrieved by registration of the FIR, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing CRMP No. 748 of 2017 seeking quashing of the FIR. Similar petitions were also filed by other accused persons. The Hon’ble High Court, vide order dated 30.06.2017, granted interim protection by staying coercive steps and directed that no final report be submitted without permission of the Court. Subsequently, vide order dated 04.09.2024, the petitions were disposed of with a direction to the Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation within a stipulated period and submit a police report before the competent Magistrate, while continuing interim protection subject to cooperation by the petitioners. It is submitted that pursuant to the said directions, the Investigating Officer concluded the investigation and filed a charge- sheet against the petitioner and co-accused Vinod Yadav, while submitting a closure report in respect of Santulal Sonkar and Sameer Ahire stating that no material evidence of misappropriation was found against them. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli, proceeded with framing of charges against co-accused Vinod Yadav and fixed the matter for arguments on framing of charges against the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that being aggrieved by such alleged discriminatory treatment, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision before the learned Additional Sessions 5 Judge, Mungeli, seeking parity and challenging continuation of proceedings against him. However, the revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 01.12.2025, primarily on the ground of maintainability, while directing the trial Court to ensure that the Investigating Officer takes appropriate action in accordance with law. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is argued that the Investigating Officer has adopted a discriminatory approach by submitting a closure report in favour of certain accused persons despite identical allegations and evidentiary material. Such selective prosecution, according to the petitioner, violates the mandate of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and amounts to abuse of process of law. It is further argued that the revisional Court failed to consider that the Magistrate accepted the closure report without passing a detailed and reasoned order, thereby allowing continuation of proceedings only against the petitioner and one co-accused. Learned counsel also submits that documentary material placed on record demonstrates that construction activities were duly authorized by the Shala Vikas Samiti, funds were deposited through proper banking channels and building permission was obtained from the competent authority, thereby negating any criminal intent or misappropriation. 8. Learned counsel further submits that the direction issued by the revisional Court to the trial Court to instruct the Investigating Officer to 6 take further action against other accused persons is vague and fails to address the issue of parity and fairness in investigation. It is contended that the entire prosecution is mala fide and unsupported by prima facie evidence and continuation of criminal proceedings infringes the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that the petitioner has not derived any wrongful gain and the investigation itself records absence of wrongful gain on the part of other accused persons whose role, according to the petitioner, is identical. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the investigation has been conducted in a fair, impartial and lawful manner. It is contended that during investigation, sufficient documentary and oral evidence has surfaced indicating specific and active involvement of the petitioner in the decision-making process relating to utilization of funds and execution of construction work. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner, being the Principal and administrative head of the institution, occupied a position of trust and was responsible for financial supervision and execution of developmental activities. It is further submitted that parity cannot be claimed merely on the basis of similarity of allegations, particularly when the roles attributed to the accused persons, degree of participation and evidentiary material differ. It is also submitted that the revisional Court has passed a well-reasoned order and the petitioner has an efficacious remedy to raise all factual and legal defences before the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage. 7 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the impugned orders and material placed on record by the parties. 11. At the outset, it is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction at this stage, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving enquiry into disputed questions of fact or to evaluate sufficiency or reliability of evidence. The Court is only required to examine whether continuation of criminal proceedings is ex facie without jurisdiction, patently illegal or amounts to abuse of the process of Court. 12. The principal contention raised by the petitioner relates to alleged discriminatory action on the part of the Investigating Agency in filing charge-sheet against the petitioner while submitting closure report in respect of certain co-accused persons. However, it is trite law that parity cannot be claimed as a matter of right unless it is demonstrated that the role, degree of participation and material available against the accused persons are identical in all respects. The determination as to involvement of each accused is essentially within the domain of the Investigating Agency and thereafter subject to judicial scrutiny by the trial Court in accordance with law. 13. In the present case, this Court does not have the benefit of examining the entire investigation record. In absence of such material, it would neither be appropriate nor permissible for this Court to record any definitive finding regarding comparative roles of the accused persons or the sufficiency of material collected during investigation. Such an 8 exercise falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the trial Court at the stage of consideration of charge or during trial. 14. So far as the challenge to the revisional order is concerned, this Court finds that the revisional Court has considered the issue raised by the petitioner and has dismissed the revision petition primarily on the ground of maintainability while granting liberty to the trial Court to proceed in accordance with law. Revisional jurisdiction is limited in scope and interference is warranted only where there is manifest illegality, gross impropriety or jurisdictional error. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any such infirmity in the impugned order. 15. It is also well settled that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the basis of defence pleas or on disputed factual assertions which require appreciation of evidence. The contentions raised by the petitioner regarding authorization of construction, utilization of funds through banking channels and absence of wrongful gain constitute matters of defence, which can appropriately be considered by the trial Court at the stage of framing of charge or during trial upon evaluation of evidence. 16. This Court is also of the considered view that the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy to raise all permissible objections before the trial Court, including the plea of discharge in accordance with law. Interference at this stage would amount to pre-empting the jurisdiction of the trial Court. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the 9 petitioner has failed to make out any case demonstrating that continuation of proceedings against him is wholly without jurisdiction or amounts to abuse of the process of Court. 18. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the trial Court shall consider the matter independently and in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made herein, which shall be confined only for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all available legal and factual grounds before the trial Court at the appropriate stage. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan