1 2026:CGHC:2709-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 25 of 2026 Rajesh Tiwari S/o Late Sudarshan Lal Tiwari Aged About 65 Years R/o 128, Sapphire Green Ext-1 Vidhan Sabha Road, 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. Varun Sharma, 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 11:10:30 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 16/01/2026 1. This petition has been filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court seeking quashment of FIR No. RC2222020A0001 dated 05.02.2020 registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, P.S. SPE/CBI/AC-IV, Bhopal for the offences punishable 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. The impugned FIR has been registered pursuant to the order dated 30.01.2020 passed by this Court in WPPIL No. 53/2018, wherein the present Petitioner was impleaded as a respondent. The Petitioner, a retired public servant, contends that no specific criminal act has been attributed to him in the FIR and that continuation of the proceedings is resulting in serious and adverse civil consequences. 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. 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, a government 3 servant, was posted as Senior Orthotic Prosthetic Engineer and In- Charge Deputy Director and attached to the Directorate, Panchayat and Social Welfare to implement welfare schemes under the National Programme for Rehabilitation of Persons with Disabilities (NPRPD). The State Resource Centre (SRC) was registered as a society in 2004, with all posts contractual and governed by ex-officio members. Respondent No.4 was appointed as Accountant on a fixed salary, while the Petitioner, though designated Executive Director, never held financial powers or drawing-disbursing authority for SRC or PRRC. 4. Respondent No.4, after being discontinued for irregularities, filed W.P. (Cr.) No. 580/2017 alleging corruption against several officials, including the Petitioner. The CBI itself, in its affidavit, stated that the matter did not warrant investigation. A Chief Secretary enquiry report, subsequent departmental audits, and State Government review all found that the Petitioner had not misappropriated any funds, had no financial authority, and that allegations of wrongdoing against him were unfounded. 5. Despite these findings, the Hon’ble High Court directed a CBI investigation, leading to registration of FIR No. RC2222020A0001. The FIR admits that no individual-specific offences are attributable to the Petitioner. The Supreme Court, while granting interim protection against coercive action, acknowledged the Petitioner’s right to challenge the FIR. The present petition is filed to quash the FIR, as it is based on motivated allegations and the Petitioner has never committed any act constituting the alleged offences. 4 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that, the impugned FIR No. RC2222020A0001 dated 05.02.2020, registered by the CBI, is wholly misconceived and baseless insofar as it pertains to the Petitioner. The Petitioner, though designated as Executive Director of the State Resource Centre (SRC), never held any financial or drawing-disbursing powers, and no individual-specific criminal act is alleged against him in the FIR. Multiple authoritative inquiries, including the report of the Chief Secretary, State Government audits, and departmental proceedings, have consistently found that the Petitioner neither misappropriated funds nor exercised any financial authority, and that allegations against him were false and motivated. The FIR has been registered solely on the basis of Respondent No.4’s claims, without any independent or substantiated evidence implicating the Petitioner. In these circumstances, the continuance of the FIR causes serious prejudice to the Petitioner, a retired public servant, and amounts to an abuse of the process of law. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the FIR and prevent any further coercive action against the Petitioner. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/CBI opposes and has submitted that, the impugned FIR was registered on the basis of credible allegations of financial irregularities and mismanagement in the functioning of the State Resource Centre (SRC) and the Physical Rehabilitation Referral Centre (PRRC), as brought to light in the Public Interest Litigation filed by Respondent No.4. The Petitioner, despite contentions to the contrary, held the position of Executive Director and was part of the decision-making and administrative process of the 5 SRC, which included oversight of contractual appointments and operations of the Society. The FIR was registered following directions of the Hon’ble High Court and pursuant to a judicially recognized procedure, and the investigation is intended to determine the facts, including any possible complicity or negligence by officials. The registration of the FIR against the Petitioner cannot be said to be an abuse of process merely because prior departmental enquiries did not hold him liable; the CBI is empowered to investigate allegations of criminal misconduct independently. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the FIR is maintainable, and no interference is warranted at this stage. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent/CBI further submits that there are sufficient and overwhelming material available with the CBI to proceed with the investigation in the FIR. He would also submit hat there is an enquiry report submitted by the State Government in which a huge scam of embezzlement of government fund was found. The allegation against the accused persons requires a detailed investigation, which comes to a logical end. From the material annexed with the WPPIL No. 53/2018, the observation made in the orders passed by Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 30.01.2020 and 23.09.2025 and also from the enquiry report, submitted by the State Government, there are prima facie sufficient material available with the CBI to proceed with the investigation. 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 6 petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR and documents annexed with the petition. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is respectfully submitted that the present petition is devoid of merit and does not warrant any interference by this Hon’ble Court. The impugned FIR has been registered pursuant to the directions of this Hon’ble Court in a Public Interest Litigation after serious allegations of financial irregularities and administrative lapses in the functioning of the State Resource Centre (SRC) and PRRC came to light. The scope of investigation at this stage is to ascertain the role of all concerned officials, including the Petitioner, who admittedly held the position of Executive Director during the relevant period. At the stage of investigation, a meticulous appreciation of evidence or adjudication on the Petitioner’s defence is impermissible. Whether the Petitioner exercised financial control or facilitated irregularities is a matter of investigation and trial. The FIR discloses cognizable offences and cannot be quashed merely on the basis of explanations or prior departmental findings. Interference at this stage would amount to stifling a lawful investigation. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed, leaving the investigating agency free to proceed in accordance with law. 11. 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- sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and 7 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. 12. 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 pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 8 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/charge sheet 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 which is sought, the court cannot embark 9 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. 10 Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of 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 11 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. Trial 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 agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.” 13. As per the pleadings of the petitioner, he was posted in additional charge of Executive Director of SRC and Director (Panchayat) and Social Welfare. Vide order dated 16.12.2016, the Director (Panchayat) issued additional charge of Establishment, Finance of the Directorate and additional charge of District Offices of Raipur and Baloda Bazar (Drawing Disbursing) to the petitioner. Vide order dated 25.09.2017, the petitioner was relieved from all the additional charges and the additional charges were handed over to another Deputy Director namely Mr. Pankaj Verma. 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 12 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 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.” 13 14. 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 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. 14 • 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. • The CBI shall make all possible endeavour to complete fair and independent investigation at the earliest.” 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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 15 taken in WPCR No. 17 of 2026. 18. 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 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. 19. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved