1 2026:CGHC:1102-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3863 of 2025 Ushavati Yadav W/o Rameshwar Yadav Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Uparghincha, Post Khutgaon, Tahsil Farsabahar, Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Tapkara, Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Hemprakash Bhardwaj Food Inspector, Farsabahar, Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. (Compainant) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Chouhan, Advocate For Respondent No.1-State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board 08.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No.1/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief: ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 “I. Allow this petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. filed by the petitioner. II. Quash the impugned FIR dated 21.09.2025 bearing Crime No. 73/2025 registered at Police Station, Tapkara, District-Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence U/s 318(4), 316(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3, 7 of Essential Commodities Act, against the petitioner. III. Grant any other relief, which may be deemed fit in given facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of petitioner.” 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the petitioner is working as Panchayat Secretary and it is alleged that the petitioner along with co-accused Ku. Sonam Lakra (Sarpanch) and Salesman Vivek Gupta have not distributed the food grain to the beneficiaries/ration card holders in spite of storage of food grains in Fair Price Shop bearing I.D. No.562007050 and thereby misappropriated the ration. The report to the above effect was lodged by Food Inspector namely Hemprakash Bhardwaj before the Police Station Tapkara on 21.09.2025 and on the basis of said report, alleged offences have been registered. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR No. 73/2025 dated 21.09.2025 registered at Police Station, Tapkara, District-Jashpur (C.G.) against the petitioner is bad in law and liable to be quashed. He further submits that as per the FIR itself, the alleged shortage of ration pertains to the period 3 from 01.04.2024 to 31.03.2025. However, the petitioner was relieved from Gram Panchayat Sajbahar vide order dated 06.03.2024 and charge was handed over to Shivmangal Sai on 09.03.2024. Thus, the petitioner had no role or control during the relevant period. Further, vide Resolution No. 6 dated 09.03.2021, the Fair Price Shop was entrusted to Salesman Vivek Kumar Gupta, who alone was responsible for distribution of food grains. The petitioner was never involved in distribution. The alleged shortage arose due to technical and internet issues in E-POS machines, resulting in manual entries, which was duly reported to higher authorities. He also submits that for the same allegations, proceedings are already pending before the S.D.O. (Revenue), Farsabahar in Case No. 202504032100013. Registration of the present FIR during pendency of the said proceedings amounts to abuse of process. He also submits that the petitioner was already granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 1587 of 2025 and as no ingredients of misappropriation are made out against the petitioner, therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings would be unjust and the FIR deserves to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the petition and submits that the impugned FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offences relating to misappropriation of food grains under the P.D.S. At the stage of investigation, the Court cannot examine disputed questions of fact or consider the 4 defence of the petitioner regarding period of charge or responsibility of other persons. It is submitted that the plea of the petitioner that he had no role in the alleged irregularities is a matter of investigation and evidence, and cannot be a ground for quashing the FIR. The pendency of proceedings before the S.D.O. (Revenue) does not bar criminal prosecution, as departmental and criminal proceedings operate in different spheres. The grant of anticipatory bail does not amount to exoneration and cannot justify quashing of the FIR. Since the FIR discloses a prima facie case, no exceptional ground for interference is made out and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The petitioner challenges FIR No. 73/2025 dated 21.09.2025 on the ground that he had been relieved from charge prior to the period of alleged shortage and that the Fair Price Shop was under the control of another person. 8. At the stage of registration of an FIR, the Court’s jurisdiction is limited to examining whether the allegations, on their face, disclose a cognizable offence. It is not permissible to decide disputed questions of fact or investigate the correctness of administrative orders. Whether the petitioner had supervisory control, or whether any shortage occurred due to technical or 5 manual entry issues, are matters to be determined during investigation. The pendency of departmental proceedings before the S.D.O. (Revenue) does not bar registration or investigation of a criminal case, as both proceedings operate in different spheres. Similarly, grant of anticipatory bail does not amount to exoneration. The FIR prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offences under the P.D.S. regime, and no exceptional circumstances are made out to warrant interference. 9. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra