1 2026:CGHC:13917-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 839 of 2026 1 - Sanjay Singh Chouhan S/o Late Gajendra Singh Chouhan, Aged About 48 Years, Office of 5th Bataliyan, CGAF Jagdalpur, District- Baster, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Officer In Charge Police Station- Frejpur, District- Baster, Chhattisgarh 2 - Senani Office of 5th Bataliyan, CGAF, Jagdalpur, District- Baster, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Love Kumar Ramteke, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. N.K. Jaiswal, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 24-03-2026 1. Heard Mr. Love Kumar Ramteke, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.K. Jaiswal, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, appearing for the Respondent No.1/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.04.01 12:20:23 +0530 2 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the FIR dated 25-06-2025 registered at Police Station Frezarpur (mentioned in the petition as ‘Frejpur’), District Bastar in Crime No. 0136/2025 for the offences under Section 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 25-06-2025 the FIR has been registered against the petitioner and another co-accused at Police Station Frezarpur, District Bastar in Crime No.0136/2025. The said FIR has been lodged by Company Commander, 5th Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Force Kangoli. It is alleged in the FIR that in the 5th Battalion there are number of officers and employees whose account were running in the said 5th Battalion and the amount deposited by the officers/employees are being given on loan at the fixed rate of interest to the employees to facilitate their work and such interest is being invested in the benefit of Chhattisgarh Police Karmachari Sakh Kalyan Samiti Maryadit, 5th Battalion CGAF, Jagdalpur. The account of the said society was being maintained by the petitioner and the co- accused. In the year 2021 at the time of audit it was found that there was misappropriation of fund total amounting Rs.3,62,01,715/- which was enquired by an Enquiry Committee consists of Audit Officers and Inspector. In the enquiry it was found that the petitioner and the co-accused have committed the misappropriation of funds by manipulating the documents. They had taken the fixed deposits receipts of the employees and its 3 amount was taken in daily cash book and shown the payment of Rs.14,00,000/- as interest. There was no fixed deposits issued to 271 members of the society, but in the daily receipts and cash book Rs.10,63,40,000/- was shown as incoming amount and Rs.1,01,29,000/- as payment to 61 members have been shown to be paid on their amount of fixed deposits and there was misappropriation of total Rs.1,27,18,234/-. With respect to 23 members double payment have been mentioned which comes to amount of Rs.6,54,456/- under the same head, with respect to 35 members Rs.46,33,440/- have already been misappropriated. Payment of Rs.24,75,000/- to Dandkaranya Gas Agency have been made without there being any sanction for payment and Rs.41,91,585/- is balance for its payment. The petitioner and the co-accused persons have committed the offence by forging the signatures and forging the documents. There was misappropriation of total Rs.3,62,01,715/-. On being interrogation the petitioner could not give satisfactory explanation and then the FIR has been lodged, which is under challenge in the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence. The petitioner has also faced departmental enquiry under Departmental Service Conduct Rules and he cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offence. The petitioner was not In-charge of the said account cell and it was being maintained by the co-accused. There is no report that the 4 document has been forged by the petitioner. There is no misappropriation of funds by the petitioner and all the transactions have been made with the approval of the higher authorities and they are regularly supervising the transactions of the society. Therefore, the FIR is prima facie based on improper facts which suffers from false allegation against the petitioner and therefore, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that there are allegations in the FIR against the petitioner that he along with co-accused Shivkant Tiwari misappropriated huge amount of Rs.3,62,01,715/- by forging the documents which was the amount of the employees who have deposited in their account in the society. The matter is still under investigation. Since the petitioner committed the offence and prima facie allegation of misconduct is there the departmental enquiry has also been initiated and both, departmental enquiry as well as criminal case, can run simultaneously and on this ground alone the FIR cannot be quashed when it pertains to misappropriation of huge amount. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition for quashing of the FIR and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5 7. In the matter of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 23 held as under :- “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 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). 6 v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of 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;” 8. From perusal of the FIR itself, prima facie allegation against the petitioner reflected that he along with Shivkant Tiwari committed the alleged offence of misappropriation of huge amount of more than 3 crore 62 lakhs. The FIR is based on their preliminary enquiry conducted by the committee consists of Senior Audit Officer and other members of the committee who prima facie found the involvement of the petitioner in the offence. It is also there that when the petitioner was interrogated he could not explain the discrepancies. The FIR also contained the manner in which the alleged misappropriation is committed by the petitioner as well as the co-accused. The allegation against the petitioner can very well be prima facie determined only after proper 7 investigation and collecting relevant documents which can be done during the course of investigation only. 9. The petitioner could not make out any prima facie sufficient ground to interfere in the petition and to quash the FIR against him. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure (supra) and considering the allegation made in the FIR with respect to misappropriation of amount of Rs.3,62,01,715/- of Chhattisgarh Police Karmachari Sakh Kalyan Samiti Maryadit, 5th Battalion CGAF, Jagdalpur along with co-accused Shivkant Tiwari, we do not find any scope for interference and to quash the impugned FIR. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil