1 2026:CGHC:8997-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 548 of 2026 Sumit Kumar Das S/o Shri Subhash Chandra Das Aged About 45 Years R/o D.N.K. 41, C.C. Banglow, Ward No. 12, T.T. 01, Colony, Mana Camp, Raipur, Tah. And District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Rajnandgaon Kotwali, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Sudesh Ku. Sahu Assistant Director Fisheries, Rajnandgaon, Rajnandgaon Kotwali, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - Geetanjali Gajbhiye Assistant Director, Fisheries, Dhamtari, Rudri, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 4 - Naved Mirza S/o Maksud Mirza Aged About 45 Years R/o Behind Madarsa Faizulraza, Talapara, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shahid Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.02.20 15:51:15 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 20.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Shahid Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set-aside the impugned charge-sheet No. 366 of 2025 dated 17.09.2025 (Annexure P/1) in Crime No. 403 of 2024, order taking cognizance in order-sheet dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure P/2) and the entire Criminal Case No. RCC/8353/2025 pending before CJM, Rajanandgaon arising out of Crime No. 403 of 2024 for the alleged offences under Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, 1860 against the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is the Director of M/s S.S. Aquaculture and M/s S.S. Aquafeed, situated at Pathrri, Fingeshwar, Rajim/Jhanki, Raipur (C.G.), and has been engaged in the business of supplying fish feed and providing services related to pisciculture since the year 2019. The petitioner claims to have carried on the said business honestly and in accordance with law, maintaining a spotless record and earning goodwill in the field of aquaculture. 4. On 04.07.2024, an FIR was registered at Police Station Rajnandgaon Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon, on the basis of a complaint 3 made by the Assistant Director, Fisheries, Rajnandgaon, against the petitioner and other accused persons. The allegations pertain to offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After investigation, Charge Sheet No. 366/2025 dated 17.09.2025 was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, and cognizance was taken on 19.09.2025. 5. The petitioner’s firm was engaged in providing fish seed and fish feed for cage culture in departmental reservoirs. It is the petitioner’s case that invoices were duly submitted to the Fisheries Department for the material supplied, and the responsibility for processing and disbursing payments to beneficiaries rested with the concerned departmental authorities, not with the petitioner’s firm. 6. The petitioner asserts that fish feed and aquaculture inputs worth approximately Rs. 170 lakhs were supplied in accordance with departmental guidelines and work orders. The firm claims to have acted strictly as a supplier/installer and not to have been responsible for the management of funds or distribution of payments to beneficiaries. 7. It is further stated that the petitioner procured fish feed from reputed firms and supplied the same for use in reservoirs, including Nawagaon Reservoir. The petitioner contends that all work was carried out transparently as per departmental directions and approvals, and that the firm incurred expenses in excess of the payments received. 8. According to the petitioner, it was within the knowledge of the concerned authorities that the petitioner’s role was limited to installation 4 of cages and supply of fish feed, and that the actual pisciculture (breeding and rearing of fish) was to be undertaken by selected beneficiaries. 9. The installation of cages was undertaken pursuant to quotations and approvals granted under the guidelines of the National Fisheries Development Board (NFDB) and the Directorate of Fisheries. Necessary administrative and technical sanctions were obtained from the competent authorities, including the Collector and the Directorate of Fisheries, for installation and shifting of cages between Pipariya and Nawagaon reservoirs. 10. It is stated that earlier inquiries were conducted by the Deputy Director, Fisheries, Rajnandgaon and Raipur, pursuant to departmental communications and complaints, wherein statements of beneficiaries were recorded. The petitioner asserts that such reports did not conclusively establish any wrongdoing on his part. 11. Payments for installation of cages and supply of fish feed were made by the Assistant Director’s office in accordance with work orders and quotations. The petitioner contends that there were no discrepancies attributable to his firm in the execution of the assigned work. 12. The petitioner further submits that applications for cage culture in departmental reservoirs were invited through public advertisement, and beneficiaries were selected and approved by the competent authority, including the Collector, Rajnandgaon. Subsequent approvals and 5 technical sanctions were granted for installation and relocation of cages in the concerned reservoirs. 13. Ultimately, on 04.07.2024, a complaint was lodged alleging conspiracy and commission of offences in relation to the cage culture scheme. On the basis of the said complaint, the present FIR was registered against the petitioner and others, culminating in the filing of the charge sheet. 14. The petitioner maintains that the allegations are false, that he acted strictly in accordance with departmental approvals and guidelines, and that he has been wrongly implicated in the matter despite having performed only the role of supplier and installer as per official directions. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR dated 04.07.2024 has been lodged falsely and maliciously, alleging conspiracy and commission of offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC. The petitioner has been wrongly implicated despite having acted strictly in accordance with departmental approvals and guidelines. It is submitted that an inquiry was conducted by the competent departmental authority, and the report placed before the Director, Fisheries, Chhattisgarh, did not find any discrepancy attributable to the petitioner. The same is evident from Letter No. 139/म./था./ाሞच/2022-23 dated 13.01.2023 (Annexure P/8). Thus, the departmental record itself demonstrates the petitioner’s innocence. 16. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner’s firm supplied fish feed and aquaculture inputs strictly as per work orders and quotations 6 issued by the Assistant Director, Fisheries. Payments were released only after verification of proforma invoices by the concerned departmental authorities. The responsibility for processing and disbursement of grants to beneficiaries rested solely with the Assistant Director’s office, and not with the petitioner. It is further submitted that the entire work relating to installation of cages and supply of fish feed was executed in accordance with the guidelines of the National Fisheries Development Board (NFDB) and with due administrative and technical sanctions from the competent authorities. Therefore, there was no illegality or deviation in execution of the assigned work. The petitioner’s role was confined to installation of cages and supply of fish feed and aquaculture materials. The petitioner was neither responsible for pisciculture activities (breeding and rearing of fish) nor for distribution of subsidy or grant amounts to beneficiaries. This fact was within the knowledge of the concerned authorities. The petitioner’s firm has continuously supplied fish feed worth approximately Rs. 170 lakhs in accordance with departmental directions. The materials were procured from reputed suppliers and provided transparently and in good faith. The petitioner was unaware of any alleged non-payment of grant amounts to beneficiaries. 17. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner himself approached the Police Station, Assistant Director, Superintendent of Police, and the Collector, Rajnandgaon, on 01.08.2024 seeking a fair and lawful investigation, which itself demonstrates his bona fides. It is submitted that during earlier departmental inquiry conducted by the Deputy 7 Director, Fisheries, statements of beneficiaries were recorded, wherein they acknowledged having undertaken cage culture work. This further negates the allegation of any fraudulent or fictitious execution of work. Applications for cage culture were invited through public advertisement, and beneficiaries were duly selected and approved by the competent authorities, including the Collector. The petitioner had no role in such selection. Learned counsel submits that co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC No. 6004/2024 and MCRCA No. 397/2025. The petitioner himself has been granted anticipatory bail in MCRCA No. 454/2025 vide order dated 03.04.2025, which indicates that the allegations are not of such gravity warranting continued prosecution without scrutiny. Although earlier petitions filed by co-accused persons for quashment were dismissed on technical grounds or as withdrawn, those orders do not adjudicate the merits of the petitioner’s case. The dismissal was either for non-joinder of necessary parties, conclusion of investigation, or with liberty to raise objections at the stage of framing of charge. Learned counsel submits that the continuation of criminal proceedings, despite departmental exoneration, lawful execution of work under official sanction, and absence of any direct misappropriation or fraudulent intent on the part of the petitioner, amounts to misuse of the criminal justice system. The allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner. Accordingly, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to quash the FIR dated 04.07.2024, Charge Sheet No. 366/2025 dated 17.09.2025, and all 8 consequential proceedings pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, in the interest of justice. 18. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the investigation was conducted in accordance with law, and upon completion, the final report/charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial Court, which has taken cognizance and is presently conducting the trial. 19. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 20. The legal position regarding quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled. The jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR, or charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. Courts ordinarily do not interfere with investigations of cognizable offences. However, where allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or charge-sheet may be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers of the Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC). 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) 1 SCC 335] laid down that FIRs or complaints can be quashed if allegations, even if assumed true, do not prima facie constitute an offence, are malicious or vexatious, or constitute an abuse of the process of law. Further, in Girish Babu v. State of Kerala [(1990) 4 9 SCC 432], the Court held that mere procedural or administrative lapses cannot be the basis for criminal prosecution, and such proceedings, if initiated, would amount to harassment of the accused. 22. From the FIR, charge-sheet, and cognizance order, it is evident that an application was submitted by Shri Sudesh Kumar Sahu, Assistant Director, Fisheries, Rajnandgaon, on 04.07.2024, requesting FIR registration against Smt. Geetanjali Gajbhiye and certain firms, including M/s S.S. Aqua Culture and M/s S.S. Aquafeed. The application alleged that while performing departmental work related to cage culture, administrative approvals were obtained using forged beneficiary documents, resulting in misappropriation of funds. The Inquiry Officer found prima facie irregularities including forged signatures, misuse of government funds, and serious negligence on the part of the departmental official. The FIR was registered based on this certified inquiry report and directions of the Collector, Rajnandgaon. 23. In view of the above, the present petition does not fall within any exceptional category warranting interference under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC). The petitioner’s contentions, even if taken at face value, do not demonstrate that the criminal proceedings are wholly without basis. 24. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu