1 2026:CGHC:1108-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 30 of 2026 Manharan Lal Mandavi S/o Late Shri Devsingh Mandavi Aged About 53 Years Occupation- Service Posted As Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Deobhog, Distt.- Gariyaband, Permanent R/o Village- Duwal Gudda, Thana- Chowki, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Balodabazar, Distt.- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Station House Officer Police Station- Palari, Distt.- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Ramkhilawan Sharma S/o Shri Ramsay Sharma Aged About 45 Years Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Palari, Distt.- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondents No.1 and 2/State : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board 8.1.2026 1. Heard Mr.Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.S.S.Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 2/State. BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.01.08 17:53:27 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief: “It, is therefore, prayed that the petition may kindly be allowed and the chargesheet of Crime No. 135/2008 Palari, Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara Registered at P.S. (C.G.) for the offences Punishable under section 467, 468, 471, 420 of IPC and proceedings/ order of taking cognizance dated 02.07.2025 of Criminal Case No. 2827/2025 pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Balodabazar, Distt. Balodabazar- Bhatapara may kindly be quashed, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts are that FIR in Crime No. 135/2008 was registered on the basis of an inquiry conducted by the Collector under the provisions of Section 85(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 against the petitioner, who was then serving as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Janpad Panchayat, Palari. The inquiry pertained to the appointment of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III made by the Janpad Panchayat on 24.05.2008, in respect of alleged irregularities said to have occurred during the period from 14.08.2007 to 12.10.2007. The charge-sheet was filed on 02.07.2025, after a lapse of about 17 years from the registration of the FIR, and only against the present petitioner, despite the fact that there existed a duly constituted Selection Committee of the Janpad Panchayat which examined the applications and documents. After verification, a merit list was prepared and 3 appointment orders were issued, bearing the signature of the petitioner in his official capacity. 4. Case of the prosecution is that on a complaint alleging forged appointments of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III at Janpad Panchayat, Palari, an Inquiry Committee was constituted. The Committee submitted a report stating that appointments were made by granting bonus marks to certain candidates who had not attached the requisite experience certificates and sports certificates. Applications and documents of 98 candidates were examined, and after verification of records and recording of their statements, it was revealed that such candidates had not attached the requisite certificates despite having been granted bonus marks. Consequently, the matter was referred to the Collector, Balodabazar, under Section 85 of the Act of 1993. The learned Collector, vide order dated 11.04.2008, terminated the services of 98 Shiksha Karmi and simultaneously directed registration of an FIR against the members of the Selection Committee, the employees involved in document verification, and the principals who allegedly issued forged experience certificates. In compliance with the said order, respondent No. 3 lodged the FIR on 24.05.2008. 5. During the course of investigation, the police of Police Station Palari seized all relevant records from the office of Janpad Panchayat, Palari, pertaining to the appointment process of Shiksha Karmi for the year 2007, including applications and 4 annexed documents, as well as the return filed by the CEO in the writ petitions filed by the candidates. The seized documents were sent for verification of signatures by a handwriting expert, and reports were also obtained from the concerned departments. Thereafter, the police sought to arrest the petitioner, compelling him to file an application for anticipatory bail before this Court. The anticipatory bail application, M.Cr.C. (A) No. 580/2020, was allowed vide order dated 24.06.2020. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid inquiry report, Crime No. 135/2008 was registered only against the present petitioner, despite the existence of a Selection Committee and a Verification Committee in the Janpad Panchayat. Although statements of witnesses were recorded, the petitioner alone was made an accused, without recovery of any incriminating document against him, solely on the ground that he was posted as CEO of Janpad Panchayat, Palari during the period 2006–2007 when the appointments of 98 Shiksha Karmi were made. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed on 02.07.2025. 7. Upon filing of the charge-sheet on 02.07.2025, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the matter and fixed the case for arguments before charge, directing the applicant to furnish bail bonds. Subsequently, on 04.09.2025, the police filed an application seeking permission to place additional documents and a supplementary list of witnesses on record, after cognizance had already been taken. Since the date of filing of the charge-sheet, 5 the case has remained pending at the stage of arguments before charge. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that, at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was posted as the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat, Palari. It is contended that a duly constituted Selection Committee had verified the documents of the candidates, pursuant to which the candidates were selected, and on the recommendations of the Selection Committee, appointment orders were issued in their favour. Subsequently, it was found that the appointments were not in accordance with law, as certain documents submitted by the candidates were forged. Learned counsel further submits that none of the members of the Selection Committee, which had selected the candidates, has been arrayed as an accused in the present case, whereas the petitioner alone has been implicated. It is also submitted that the FIR was registered as far back as the year 2007, and after an inordinate delay of 17 years, the charge- sheet has been filed against the petitioner, which amounts to a gross abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, it is prayed that the charge-sheet be quashed. 9. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 2/State opposes the prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet. He submits that although it is true that the charge-sheet has been filed after a considerable delay of 17 years, the appointments in question were cancelled by the District 6 Magistrate, Raipur after conducting a due enquiry. He further submits that the petitioner had issued the appointment letters to the candidates and, therefore, his involvement in the present case cannot be ruled out. So far as the contention regarding non- arraignment of other members of the Selection Committee as accused is concerned, learned Government Advocate submits that it is open to the trial Court, during the course of the trial, to take appropriate action in the interest of justice, if it finds that the involvement of the members of the Selection Committee is required. 10. In view of above, the present petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu