1 2026:CGHC:26713-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1611 of 2026 Sandeep Kumar Dubey S/o Ramsharan Dubey Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 06, Mohlain, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Pathariya, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 2 - Mohar Das Arya S/o Rajnu Das Aarya Aged About 48 Years Village Fandwani Kapa, Posted As In-Charge/ Branch Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited (Bilaspur) Sargaon Branch, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 01.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.07.01 17:24:42 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘B.N.S.S.’) with the following relief(s):- “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash and set aside the FIR bearing Crime No. 87/2026 dated 13.04.2026 registered at Police Station Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.) under Sections 318(4), 316(5) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 insofar as the Petitioner Sandeep Kumar Dubey is concerned and further quash and set aside consequential proceedings including the investigation, notices and any future process issued against the Petitioner arising from the said crime in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is working as a Data Entry Operator (Computer Operator) with Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Chandkhuri, Registration No. 1577, since 09.08.2013 pursuant to an appointment order issued on the same date. During the Kharif Paddy Procurement Season 2025-26, the petitioner was deputed to work as Computer Operator at Paddy Procurement Centre, Dhardei, Registration No. 2831, for the period from 15.11.2025 to 31.01.2026. The petitioner's duties were purely clerical in nature and confined to entering data into the computer system strictly in accordance with the instructions issued by the Society Manager/Centre In-charge, namely, Kartik Ram Dhruv. According to the petitioner, he neither had custody 3 nor control over the physical stock of paddy and was never entrusted with its storage, transportation or management. It is further pleaded that the petitioner remained on duly sanctioned leave from 26.11.2025 to 03.12.2025 and, during his absence, the Centre In-charge allegedly got data entries made through an unauthorized person, namely, Purushottam Sahu, while transportation of paddy and data entries were allegedly carried out during odd hours. Subsequently, upon a joint inspection conducted on 30.03.2026 by the competent authorities, shortage of 2,156.08 quintals of paddy valued at Rs.66,83,848/- was detected at the procurement centre. On the basis of a written complaint submitted by the Branch Manager of the District Co-operative Central Bank, FIR bearing Crime No.87/2026 came to be registered at Police Station Pathariya, District Mungeli, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’). 4. It is further averred that after detection of the shortage, the Centre In-charge, Kartik Ram Dhruv, himself deposited 1,960 quintals of paddy in two instalments, thereby acknowledging responsibility for the shortage. The petitioner also points out that investigation is still pending and no charge-sheet has yet been filed. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing an application for anticipatory bail, which was allowed by order dated 12.05.2026 after noticing, inter alia, that the petitioner's role was primarily clerical in nature, there was nothing on record to indicate his direct involvement in the custody or misappropriation of the paddy stock, the co-accused Society Manager 4 had deposited the shortage and that the petitioner had no criminal antecedents. Aggrieved by his implication in the aforesaid FIR despite the absence of any material showing his involvement in the alleged offences, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking quashment of the impugned FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the impugned crime merely because he was working as a Computer Operator at the concerned procurement centre. It is contended that the petitioner was discharging only clerical functions of entering data into the computer system strictly under the directions of the Society Manager/Centre In-charge and was never entrusted with the custody, supervision or management of the paddy stock. It is submitted that even if the allegations contained in the FIR are accepted in their entirety, they do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 316(5) of the BNS, inasmuch as the petitioner neither dishonestly induced any person nor was entrusted with any property in a fiduciary or managerial capacity so as to attract the offence of criminal breach of trust. It is further argued that the invocation of Section 3(5) of the BNS is wholly misconceived, as there is not even a whisper in the FIR suggesting any prior meeting of minds or common intention on the part of the petitioner to commit the alleged offence. He further submits that the entire shortage was admittedly acknowledged by the Society Manager/Centre In-charge, Kartik Ram Dhruv, who subsequently deposited 1,960 quintals of paddy after 5 detection of the shortage, thereby demonstrating that the petitioner had no role whatsoever in the alleged misappropriation. It is further contended that the petitioner was on sanctioned leave during a crucial period when, according to the pleadings, data entries were made through an unauthorized person and transportation of paddy was carried out during odd hours, which itself probabilises the petitioner's innocence. Learned counsel also places reliance upon the order dated 12.05.2026 passed by this Court in MCRCA No.731/2026 granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, wherein this Court observed that the petitioner's role was primarily clerical in nature, there was nothing on record to indicate his direct involvement in the custody or misappropriation of the paddy stock, the co-accused had deposited the shortage and that the petitioner had no criminal antecedents. It is submitted that continuation of the criminal proceedings despite such observations would amount to abuse of the process of law. It is lastly contended that the FIR has been registered mechanically without any independent application of mind to the petitioner's actual role, no material exists to establish the requisite mens rea for the alleged offences and, therefore, the impugned FIR as well as all consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the impugned FIR has been registered pursuant to a detailed joint inspection conducted by the Naib Tehsildar, Food Inspector, Mandi Inspector, Co-operative Extension Officer and Bank 6 Supervisor, which revealed a shortage of 2,156.08 quintals of paddy valued at Rs.66,83,848/-. It is submitted that the written complaint specifically attributes the shortage to the serious negligence, manipulation and embezzlement committed by both the Procurement Centre In-charge, Kartik Ram Dhruv, and the petitioner, who was functioning as the Computer Operator at the relevant procurement centre. Thus, the FIR discloses the commission of cognizable offences and cannot be said to be frivolous or devoid of any factual foundation. He further submits that the petitioner's contention that he was merely a Data Entry Operator performing clerical duties constitutes a defence, which cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. Whether the petitioner had any active role in manipulation of procurement records, electronic data entries or the alleged embezzlement are disputed questions of fact requiring a thorough investigation. It is further contended that the subsequent deposit of the shortage by the co-accused or the observations made while granting anticipatory bail do not absolve the petitioner of criminal liability, as the investigation is still pending and no final report has yet been filed. It is, therefore, submitted that since the FIR prima facie discloses cognizable offences and the investigation is at a nascent stage, this Court ought not to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to stifle a legitimate investigation. The petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 7 8. 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 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. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.). 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Supreme Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 8 10. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has authoritatively settled the scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The Apex Court has held that the power to quash criminal proceedings is required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the rarest of rare cases. It has been categorically observed that while considering a prayer for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR, nor can it appreciate the evidence or conduct a mini trial. The Court is only required to examine whether the allegations, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court further emphasized that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the threshold, that investigation into cognizable offences should ordinarily be permitted to proceed unhindered, and that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with great caution and self-restraint, save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in manifest miscarriage of justice. 11. Very recently, in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid principles and further held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS), the High Court 9 cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact or evaluate the evidentiary worth of the material collected during investigation. The Court reaffirmed the test laid down in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor and observed that criminal proceedings can be quashed at the threshold only when the material relied upon by the accused is of sterling and impeccable quality, completely demolishes the prosecution case, remains incapable of being refuted by the prosecution, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. Unless all these parameters are cumulatively satisfied, the High Court ought not to interfere in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, leaving the parties to establish their respective cases before the trial Court in accordance with law. 12. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the allegations contained in the First Information Report and the material collected during the course of investigation cannot be said to be so absurd, inherently improbable or wholly devoid of substance so as to warrant exercise of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS. The prosecution case is not founded merely upon bald allegations. The FIR has been registered pursuant to a joint inspection conducted by the Naib Tehsildar, Food Inspector, Mandi Inspector, Co-operative Extension Officer and Bank Supervisor, wherein a shortage of 2,156.08 quintals of paddy valued at Rs.66,83,848/- was detected at Paddy Procurement Centre, Dhardei. The investigation has been undertaken on the basis of the inspection report and the written complaint submitted by the Branch Manager, 10 District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. Whether the allegations ultimately culminate in conviction is a matter falling exclusively within the domain of the competent criminal Court. 13. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that he was merely a Computer Operator entrusted only with data entry work and had neither custody nor control over the physical stock of paddy. It has also been contended that the entire responsibility for procurement, storage and transportation of paddy rested upon the Centre In-charge, Kartik Ram Dhruv, who subsequently deposited the shortage, thereby acknowledging his liability. This Court is unable to accept the said submission at this stage. The FIR specifically alleges that both the Centre In-charge and the petitioner, who was functioning as the Computer Operator, were responsible for the irregularities resulting in the shortage of paddy. Whether the petitioner merely discharged ministerial functions or actively participated in manipulation of procurement records, stock entries or other transactions are disputed questions of fact which require appreciation of evidence during the course of investigation and, if necessary, trial. 14. Equally untenable is the submission that the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, fail to disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged. The FIR, read as a whole, alleges that due to the serious negligence, manipulation and embezzlement committed by the Procurement Centre In-charge and the petitioner, a substantial shortage of paddy was detected during the joint inspection. Whether the 11 petitioner was entrusted with any responsibility, whether he knowingly manipulated electronic records and whether the essential ingredients of the offences alleged are ultimately established are matters which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. 15. The submission that the petitioner had no physical custody of the paddy stock and was merely performing clerical duties also cannot be accepted as a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings. The prosecution case does not rest solely upon the allegation of physical custody of the stock. Rather, it is alleged that the petitioner, while functioning as the Computer Operator at the procurement centre, was involved in the acts of manipulation leading to the shortage detected during inspection. Whether such allegations are ultimately substantiated is a matter requiring investigation and appreciation of evidence and cannot be conclusively determined at this preliminary stage. 16. From the material placed before this Court, it transpires that the investigation has been initiated pursuant to an official inspection conducted by the competent authorities, followed by registration of the FIR on the written complaint of the Branch Manager of the District Co- operative Central Bank. The investigating agency is in the process of examining the inspection report, procurement records, electronic data entries and other relevant material to ascertain the role of the persons concerned. The investigation, therefore, cannot be said to be founded upon mere conjectures or surmises or to have been initiated mechanically. 12 17. Upon cumulative consideration of the allegations contained in the FIR and the material presently available on record, this Court is satisfied that the allegations, if accepted at their face value for the limited purpose of the present proceedings, disclose a prima facie case requiring a fair and complete investigation. The prosecution has attributed a specific role to the petitioner as the Computer Operator posted at the procurement centre during the relevant procurement season. Whether the extent of such involvement ultimately constitutes criminal liability is a matter to be determined upon completion of investigation and, if warranted, during trial. 18. The defence sought to be projected by the petitioner that he was merely a Data Entry Operator, that he had no custody or dominion over the paddy stock, that he acted strictly under the directions of the Centre In-charge, that he remained on sanctioned leave during part of the procurement period and that the entire shortage was subsequently made good by the co-accused, are all matters constituting his defence. Such pleas involve disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. This Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, does not function as a trial Court to evaluate the correctness of rival factual assertions or the evidentiary value of the material collected during investigation. 19. In the considered opinion of this Court, the present case does not fall within any of the categories illustratively carved out by the Hon'ble 13 Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra) warranting exercise of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction for quashing the FIR or the consequential criminal proceedings. The allegations cannot, at this stage, be characterised as inherently improbable, manifestly absurd or so patently frivolous that no prudent person could arrive at a prima facie conclusion regarding the commission of the alleged offences. 20. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for quashing FIR bearing Crime No.87/2026 registered at Police Station Pathariya, District Mungeli, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5) and 3(5) of the BNS, or the consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom. The petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. 21. It is, however, made clear that the observations recorded herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The investigating agency shall complete the investigation in accordance with law, and if a final report is filed, the competent Court shall consider the matter independently and uninfluenced by any observation made in the present order. 22. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu