1 2026:CGHC:1595-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 75 of 2026 1 - Laxman Prasad Dewangan S/o Late Bhagwati Prasad Dewangan , Aged About 56 Years, R/o Civil Line Ward No. 18, Near Sai Mandir, P.S. and Tahsil Menendragarh, District- Manendragarh- Chirmiri Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Department of Home Mantralaya, New Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Superintendent of Police Balrampur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3 - The Station House Officer, Police Station Kusmi, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 4 - The Chief Executive Officer, Co-Operative Central Bank Maryadit Ltd. Devi Ganj Road, Ambikapur, Sarguja (C.G.) 5 - The Collector, District- Sarguja Ambikapur, (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate. For State : Mr. Dharmesh Srivastava, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.01.14 17:58:49 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 12-01-2026 1. The present CRMP under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR of Crime No.39/2025 dated 27-05-2025 which has been registered for the offence under Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of the IPC registered at P.S. Kusmi, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj and also challenging the Charge Sheet No.49/2025 dated 21-08-2025 and order taking cognizance dated 23-08-2025. The petitioner is also challenging the entire criminal proceeding initiated against him pursuant to the said FIR and charge sheet bearing Criminal Case No.1841/2025. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is an accused in Criminal Case No.1841/2025 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj. The said criminal case arise from FIR of Crime No.39/2025 registered on the instance of Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, who was the Nodal Officer of respondent No.4, District Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit Branch Balrampur. It is alleged in the FIR that on receiving a e-mail from NABARD regional office, Raipur on 26-04-2024 in which there was allegations made by CEO, Janpad Panchayat Shankargarh with respect to suspected transactions in Bank Account No.604007085677, 604007009117 and 604007013601 and financial scam at Kusmi Branch. An enquiry team was constituted on 03-10-2024, but in absence of any enquiry proceeding, an audit report was obtained on 05-02-2025 from C.A. of the bank and according to the said audit report there was 3 irregularity found of Rs.6,27,26,935/- from Account No. 604007085677, Rs.3,19,20,700/- from the Account No.604007009117, Rs. 2,41,18,614/- from the Account No.604007013601, Rs. 16,58,000 from the Account No. 104003588738, Rs,64,13,500/- from the Account No.104003641217 and Rs.46,44,841/- from the Account No.604007024067, i.e., total amount of Rs.13,14,82,590/-. Enquiry Committee also submitted its report on 04-04-2025 and found the financial irregularities of Rs.19,22,73,908/- from Account No. 604007085677, Rs.91,57,000/- from the Account No.104003641217 and Rs.3,19,20,700/- from the Account No. 604007009117 and transfer of Jamuna Alankar through N.E.F.T. with respect to Rs. 40,54,000/-, i.e., total Rs.23,74,05,608/-. Considering the said financial irregularities detected a Special Audit Team was appointed and it was found by the Special Audit Team that apart from the irregularities of the bank account there was financial irregularities of Rs.1,36,95,199.30/- in Bank Account No.604007054842 (Ashok Kumar Soni), Rs.46,44,841/- in Bank Account No. 604007024067 (Prakash Kumar Singh), Rs. 96,36,814/- in the Bank Account No.104000578368 (Sudesh Kumar Yadav) and Rs.30,00,000/- transferred through N.E.F.T. in the account of Mahamaya Construction and thus, total financial irregularities of Rs.26,47,82,462.93/- and it was found that the bank employees through forged bank account of the beneficiaries committed the alleged offence and embezzled huge money of the bank by transferring it in various KCC account of the formers. The FIR has been registered and after due investigation charge sheet was filed against 13 accused persons 4 including the petitioner for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of the IPC and two accused persons shown absconding in the charge sheet. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the offence. There is not evidence against the petitioner that he also involved in the alleged offence or beneficiary of any amount. He would further submit that from bare perusal of the entire material available in the charge sheet, it prima facie appears that the false case has been prepared against the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as Society Manager on 25-10-2016 and after his appointment he was transferred to various places in the branches of District Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit, Ambikapur. At the time of alleged offence the petitioner was posted at Surajpur Branch and subsequently, he was transferred to Shankargarh Branch vide order dated 07-08-2024. On 10-10-2024 he was again transferred to Bhaiyathan Branch and he was involved in handling the administrative task and maintaining the society property and records. The allegation against him is that the petitioner overseen the daily operations and negligent in discharging his duty. Except for the transaction of Rs.20,000/- from the ID of the present petitioner he nowhere involved in such type of financial irregularities, yet he has been made an accused in the case and charge sheet has been filed. He would further submit that the said transfer was not made by the petitioner himself, but by using his ID someone else have made transaction for which the petitioner cannot be held liable to face criminal prosecution. He would 5 also submit that from the document annexed with the charge sheet ID No.725 pertains to the petitioner and ID No.631 pertains to the Branch Manager Ashok Kumar Soni which has been used for crediting amount of Rs.20,000/- only for a single transaction, but the amount alleged is being deposited or credited in the account of the account holder and the said amount has not been withdrawn by the petitioner. There was no preliminary enquiry conducted by the police and only on the basis of enquiry made by the bank authorities the FIR has been registered. The ID of the present petitioner as well as the Branch Manager has been used for transaction and the amount in question has been credited in the account of Mr. Sudesh Kumar Yadav who is operator of the bank and one of the co-accused. There is no sufficient material in the charge sheet against the present petitioner to proceed and taking congnizance against him and the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR and charge sheet against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Umesh Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, (2013) 10 SCC 591 and Anand Kumar Mohatta and another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and another, (2019) 11 SCC 706. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State vehemently opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that such huge financial scam in the bank cannot be possible by one man, but it can be done with involvement of the entire network who engaged in transaction. There is offence under 6 Section 120B of the IPC also for conspiracy and forging of valuable security and cheating. The manner in which the alleged act of financial irregularities committed in the bank and the stake of amount involved in the scam does not entitle the present petitioner for any relief. It is alleged that by using his ID certain transactions have been made. The petitioner himself has admitted that his ID No.725 was used for transaction of the amount. There is transaction of Rs.20,000/- from the ID account of the petitioner, 725 in the ID account of Branch Manager Ashok Kumar Soni, 631. Ashok Kumar Soni is Branch Manager and one of the co-accused in the present case against whom also there are sufficient evidence with respect to the fraudulent transaction of money in the bank. The FIR was lodged on the basis of letter dated 26-05-2025 issued by the Branch Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank, Ambikapur alleging that the petitioner along with other accused persons had misappropriated huge amount through bogus and forged transaction in several bank accounts at Shankargarh Branch. More than 26 cores rupees are the amount under embezzlement through 138 entries as per enquiry and audit report. There are prima facie evidence against the petitioner that he also involved in such financial scam. During investigation it was also found that fake bank accounts were opened and used in the name of CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Shankargarh and huge cash amount withdrawn without knowledge of true account holders. Since it is a case of conspiracy and cheating with the bank and misappropriation of huge amount, the proceeding against the petitioner cannot be quashed as there are prima facie sufficient evidence against 7 him in the charge sheet. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. From perusal of the documents annexed with the petition, it transpires that the petitioner was having ID No.725 and the amount of Rs.20,000/- was transferred to the ID No.631 Ashok Kumar Soni. There are various transactions by or in favour of Ashok Kumar Soni who was Branch Manager at Shankargarh Branch. It is not embezzlement through one day transaction, but it continues for a considerable period. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. The Supreme Court has emphasised that though the court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 8. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar 8 (supra) and Anand Kumar Mohatta (supra) are distinguishable to the facts and consideration in the present case against the petitioner, therefore, no benefit can be extended on the basis of the same. 9. In the instant case, from perusal of the FIR and charge-sheet, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. The present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC (Now Section 528 of the BNSS) to quash the impugned FIR, charge-sheet and criminal proceedings. Hence, no ground exists for quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet and criminal proceedings. Even otherwise, it is a settled position of law that while exercising powers under Section 482, CrPC, the High Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. What is required to be considered at that stage is the nature of accusations and allegations in the FIR and whether the averments/allegations in the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of the cognizable offence or not. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties, perusing the documents appended with the petition and also considering the contents of the FIR and the charge- sheet, and further considering the fact that there are allegation of conspiracy and misappropriation of huge money, we do not find any sufficient ground to quash the impugned FIR, charge sheet and the proceeding of Criminal Case No.1841/2025 against the petitioner pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajpur and the impugned order dated 23-08-2025 of taking cognizance against the 9 petitioner. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil