1 2026:CGHC:2708-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 24 of 2026 Pankaj Verma S/o Late H.M. Verma Aged About 60 Years R/o Om Society Road, Near Vlm School, Sundarnagar, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union Of India Through Home Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs India, North Block, Cabinet Secretariat, Raisina Hills New Delhi New Delhi 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Central Bureau Of Investigation C.B.I. Chhattisgarh Through The Superintendent Of Police, Cbi, Ac-Iv, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) 4 - Kundan Singh Thakur S/o Shri Hari Singh Thakur Aged About 43 Years R/o House No. 3, Near Khallari Mata Mandir, P.S. City, Kushalpur Chowk, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No.1/UOI : Ms. Annapurna Tiwari and Mr. Bhupendra Pandey, Central Government Counsel For Respondent No.2/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General For Respondent No.3/CBI : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.01.22 11:09:53 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 16/01/2026 1. The present Petition has been filed challenging FIR No. RC2222020A0001 dated 05.02.2020, registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Police Station SPE/CBI/AC-IV, Bhopal, for the alleged offences under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which was purportedly registered in compliance of the order dated 30.01.2020 passed by this Hon’ble Court in WPPIL No. 53/2018, wherein the Petitioner was impleaded as a respondent; however, the FIR itself records that no specific individual-wise criminal act is attributed to respondents No. 15 to 26, including the Petitioner, and that the case has been registered against unknown office bearers/servants, thereby disclosing that no offence is made out against the Petitioner, who, being at the fag end of his service career, continues to face an imminent threat of harassment and malicious prosecution so long as the impugned FIR remains in force. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned first information report (F.I.R.) No. RC2222020A0001 registered at P.S. SPE/CBI/AC-IV/Bhopal dated 05/02/2020 in so far it relates to the petitioner. 3 10.2 Any other relief may also be granted by this Hon'ble court in facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that, the Petitioner is a senior government officer presently posted as Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Vitta Vikas Nigam, Raipur, and is due to retire in the year 2027. During his service career, the Petitioner was posted as Deputy Director at Bilaspur (2013–2016) and thereafter at Ambikapur, Sarguja. For the first time, vide order dated 25/09/2017, while posted as Deputy Director, Panchayat Department, Ambikapur, the Petitioner was given additional charge of the State Resource (Nishaktjan) Centre (SRC). Subsequently, the Petitioner was promoted as Additional Director in December 2022 and later transferred as Managing Director in July 2024. The allegations forming the subject matter of the impugned FIR pertain to the period 2007–2016, during which the Petitioner was neither posted at Raipur nor holding charge of the SRC, and therefore had no role whatsoever in the alleged acts. 4. The State Resource (Nishaktjan) Centre (SRC) is a society registered in 2004 under the National Programme for Rehabilitation of Persons with Disabilities (NPRPD), with its governing body consisting entirely of ex-officio members. The Respondent No.4 was appointed purely on contractual basis as an Accountant at a fixed remuneration and later resigned to join Swavalamban Kendra, Raipur. He was subsequently discontinued in 2016 due to financial irregularities. Aggrieved by his discontinuation, Respondent No.4 initiated multiple litigation and made sweeping allegations of corruption against various officials, including 4 the Petitioner, despite there being no specific allegation or evidence of any act attributable to the Petitioner during the relevant period. 5. Pursuant to directions of this Hon’ble Court, inquiries were conducted at the level of the Chief Secretary and by the office of the Accountant General, which categorically found no systemic corruption or misappropriation attributable to the Petitioner. The reports instead revealed irregularities committed by Respondent No.4 himself. Despite these findings, a CBI investigation was ordered and an FIR was registered solely on the basis of allegations made by Respondent No.4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court subsequently stayed the FIR and permitted the Petitioner to challenge it independently, observing that the High Court’s earlier observations would not prejudice further proceedings. The Petitioner has thus approached this Hon’ble Court seeking quashing of the impugned FIR, contending that he has been falsely implicated as a scapegoat without any factual or legal basis. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed as it does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence against the Petitioner. The Petitioner never held any financial, drawing or disbursing authority in the State Resource Centre (SRC) or Physical Referral Rehabilitation Centre (PRRC) during the entire alleged period, nor is there any document signed or prepared by the Petitioner facilitating withdrawal or misappropriation of public funds. The records, as found in the Chief Secretary’s report, were exclusively handled by Respondent No.4, who worked in SRC from 2007 to 2016 and against whom the allegations 5 are primarily directed. The FIR itself admits that no individual-wise criminal act is attributed to the Petitioner and the case has been registered against unknown persons. The impugned FIR is founded upon an order dated 07.01.2020 which already stands set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which has further clarified that its earlier observations shall not affect subsequent proceedings. There is neither any allegation of personal gain, conversion of funds, demand or acceptance of illegal gratification, nor any complaint against the Petitioner till date, thereby ruling out offences under IPC Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegation of drawing salary from multiple sources and of misappropriation of Rs.1000 Crores has been found to be factually incorrect, and the exoneration of officials in the departmental meeting dated 09.09.2019 has been completely ignored. Continuation of proceedings on such vague and baseless allegations is resulting in grave civil consequences to the Petitioner and amounts to abuse of the process of law. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the CBI opposes and has submitted that, the present petition seeking quashing of the FIR is wholly misconceived and premature, as the impugned FIR clearly discloses serious and grave cognizable offences involving large-scale financial irregularities, misappropriation of public funds and criminal conspiracy in the functioning of the State Resource Centre (SRC) and Physical Referral Rehabilitation Centre (PRRC). The Petitioner cannot seek blanket immunity merely by contending that he was not a drawing or disbursing officer, as criminal liability under Sections 120-B, 6 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 extends to all persons who, by acts of omission or commission, facilitated, enabled or were part of the decision-making or supervisory chain resulting in such misappropriation. The FIR is not based on conjectures but on materials and findings which warranted a CBI investigation, as directed by this Hon’ble Court, and the scope of investigation cannot be curtailed at the threshold stage. The pleas raised by the Petitioner are purely factual in nature and require detailed examination of evidence, records and the role of each official, which is impermissible in proceedings under Article 226/Section 482 CrPC. The clarification issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not amount to exoneration of the Petitioner nor does it bar investigation by an independent agency. At this nascent stage, when the investigation is still underway, interference by this Hon’ble Court would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution and would defeat the larger public interest involved in uncovering systemic corruption. At this stage, no interference is warranted in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401, (M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others) and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR and documents annexed with the petition. 9. In light of the rival contentions, the case presents a classic conflict between the individual's right against malicious prosecution and the state's duty to investigate systemic corruption. The Petitioner’s 7 case rests on the "plea of alibi" and lack of functional jurisdiction, arguing that since he was neither posted at the relevant station nor held financial authority during the period of the alleged scam (2007– 2016), the FIR is a factual impossibility. He further contends that the investigation is a byproduct of a "personal vendetta" by a disgruntled contractual employee (Respondent No. 4) and that administrative exoneration by the Chief Secretary should carry weight in determining the absence of a prima facie case. 10. Conversely, the CBI’s stance is rooted in the "Doctrine of Conspiracy" under Section 120-B of the IPC. They argue that corruption in public offices often involves complex, layered webs where officials might facilitate crimes through omission or lack of supervision rather than direct signatures. By invoking the Neeharika Infrastructure precedent, the CBI asserts that the High Court cannot stifle a legitimate probe at the "nascent stage" before the agency has had the opportunity to examine the full chain of command. 11. The court’s decision will ultimately depend on whether the Petitioner can demonstrate that his inclusion in the FIR is "manifestly attended with mala fide". Ultimately, if the record remains devoid of any nexus between the Petitioner and the alleged misappropriation during 2007– 2016, the court may find that keeping the sword of prosecution hanging over him serves no purpose other than harassment. 12. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge- 8 sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 13. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. In para 23(i) to (xv), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that:- “23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the 9 pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of 10 which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of 11 the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. TArialhe court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating 12 agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.” 14. As per the pleadings of the petitioner, he was posted as Deputy Director at Chhattisgarh Vitta Vikas Nigam, Bilaspur from 2013 to 2016, and thereafter, from 25.09.2017, he was posted as Deputy Director (Panchayat) and was handed over the additional charge of SRC. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Additional Director (Panchayat) and Social Welfare, vide order dated 23.12.2022 and posted at Directorate, Panchayat and Social Welfare, Raipur. Vide order dated 09.07.2024, he has been posted as Managing Director of Chhattisgarh Vitta Vikas Nigam, Raipur. As per the enquiry report submitted by the State Government, the irregularities with respect to withdrawal of huge government fund, have been found and it was also prima facie found that the said SRC and PRRC are running only in papers there was no appointments of the employees in such concern. It is not alleged that the offence is committed on a particular date, but it continued from a very long time since 2013-14. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 30.01.2020 has observed in para 21 and 22 of its order that :- “21. Having noted the law declared and observations made by the Supreme Court in the above referred judgments and considering the same in the facts and circumstances of the case it requires serious notice that the petitioner alleges large scale bungling and siphoning of public funds which may run into hundreds of crores or even more than thousand crores. memo of the The report along with submission 13 respondent/State partially admits of certain financial irregularities, however, no serious attempt has been made to unearth and find out as to who has siphoned the amount. Only some notices for departmental action have been issued without registering any offence for misuse of public funds of such enormous proportion. Public office cannot be a place for acquiring personal gain. Probity in public life is of great Importance. Corruption is an enemy of nation and tracking down corrupt public servant, howsoever high he may be, and punishing such person is a necessary mandate under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code. 22. The public officers arrayed as the respondents No. 15 to 26 are high ranked officers and it seems to be the precise reason why the respondent State is reluctant to investigate the crime to find out as to whether any criminal offence has been committed or not, however, when startling and disturbing facts have been brought to our notice with, prima facie, proof, this Court cannot shun its constitutional duty and be a mute spectator to condone such lapses, if it is eventually find out in a fair and independent investigation.” 15. When the matter was remitted back to this Court after setting aside the order dated 30.01.2020, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has further observed that:- “45. In the case at hand, as submitted by learned 14 counsel for respondent CBI that pursuant to earlier order of this Court, FIR No.RC2222020A0001 PS SPE/CBI/AC-IV/Bhopal dated 5.2.2020 is already registered, however, in compliance of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is kept in hold. Meaning thereby, FIR is already registered. Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside earlier order of this Court dated 30.1.2020 only on the ground that private respondents were not noticed and order is passed without hearing them. Now the respondents after notice appeared and have not disputed that they were also members of the Managing Committee. However, the report of the Chief Secretary submitted in the proceeding remain unshaken. Hence, having considered the law laid down and observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in above referred decisions and facts discussed above, we are of the view that the matter requires fair and independent investigation by the CBI to unearth the truth. 46. Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of with following directions:- • The CBI shall proceed further with FIR No.RC2222020A0001 at P.S. SPE/CBI/AC-IV/Bhopal dated 5.2.2020. • The CBI shall seize relevant original records from the concerned department, organization and offices throughout the State within 15 days from the date of registration of FIR, if not done. 15 • The CBI shall make all possible endeavour to complete fair and independent investigation at the earliest.” 16. The order dated 23.09.2025 was further challenged by one of the respondent in the writ petition namely Mr. M.L. Pandey by filing SLP (C) No. 37/2025 which has been disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.12.2025 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to interfere with the impugned order. 17. When the allegation levelled against the accused persons and after examination of the material available in the writ petition, the co- ordinate bench of this Court directed to register the FIR and to investigate the matter by CBI and further that the allegation is with respect to the embezzlement of huge government money which may comes to more than Rs. 100 Crores. The matter certainly requires investigation by the CBI and at this stage, it cannot be said that there is no involvement of the petitioner to quash the FIR against him. 18. Since, the WPCR No. 17 of 2026 (Ashok Tiwari v. Union of India and others) has already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 14.01.2026 and the issue involved in the present petition is also similar to the issue involved in WPCR No. 17 of 2026, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WPCR No. 17 of 2026. 19. Considering the allegations levelled in the FIR and material produced in the writ petition as well as in the light of judgment passed by the 16 Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we do not find any good ground for interference as it cannot be said that no prima facie offence is disclosed to investigate the case. 20. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-Sd/-SSd/-d/-Sd Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved