1 2026:CGHC:27020-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1698 of 2026 Ilahi Mohammad Qureshi S/o Hafiz Mohammad Qureshi Presently Aged About 52 Years R/o Vill- Baloda, P.S. Baloda, Distt- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Akaltara Distt- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 2 - Himanshu Gupta S/o Shri Parmanand Gupta Presently Aged About 50 Years R/o Janpad Panchayat Premises Akaltara, Distt-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ravindra Sharma, 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 02.07.2026 1. Heard Mr.Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.07.02 17:56:25 +0530 2 appearing for respondent No.1/State. 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 prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and may kindly be pleased to quash/set. aside the F.I.R. / Crime No. 233/2025 registered at P.S. Akaltara, Dist- Janjgir Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable U/s 420, 409 & 34 of I.P.C. on 04.06.2025, charge sheet No. 264/2025 dated 26.08.2025 submitted for the offences punishable U/s 420, 409 & 34 of I.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Akaltara, Dist- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) and the order of taking cognizance dated 04.09.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Akaltara, Dist- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 744/2025 to the extent of concerning petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Himanshu Gupta, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Akaltara, lodged a written complaint alleging financial irregularities in Gram Panchayat Kotmisonar during the financial years 2022–23 and 2023–24. The complaint was based on representations made by the then District Panchayat Member, Pradeep Kumar Soni. Pursuant thereto, a four- member Enquiry Committee was constituted, which reported that the Sarpanch, Smt. Ramin Bai, and the then Panchayat Secretary, the 3 present petitioner, had allegedly misused and embezzled an amount of ₹25,13,528/- from the 15th Finance Commission funds by withdrawing the amount without proper resolutions of the Gram Panchayat and without specifying the works for which the funds were utilized. 4. On the basis of the said complaint, Crime No. 233/2025 was registered against the petitioner and the co-accused. The petitioner was arrested on 10.06.2025, and after completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet. Subsequently, the petitioner was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 24.09.2025 passed in M.C.R.C. No. 7731/2025. Hence, the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged. It is contended that he has been falsely implicated in the present case, although no prima facie case is made out against him. It is further submitted that, at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was serving as the Secretary of Gram Panchayat Kotmisonar. As Panchayat Secretary, he had no independent authority to utilize or sanction the funds of the Gram Panchayat without a proposal and resolution passed by the elected office-bearers of the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, the allegations of misappropriation against the petitioner are wholly misconceived. Learned counsel further submits that the enquiry committee has not recorded any finding that the petitioner had personally misappropriated or utilized any amount of the Gram Panchayat funds for his own benefit. It is also contended that the competent authority, namely, the Sub- 4 Divisional Officer (Revenue), by order dated 13.12.2024, suspended the co-accused Sarpanch, Smt. Ramin Bai, thereby indicating that the responsibility, if any, rested with the elected Sarpanch. 6. It is next contended that the enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before the enquiry report was submitted. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated only because he had supported the Sarpanch when she made complaints against the complainant, who was serving as the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Akaltara. It is argued that the criminal proceedings are the result of political rivalry and have been initiated with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner is an ex-serviceman who has discharged his duties with utmost honesty and sincerity throughout his service in the Indian Army as well as while serving as Panchayat Secretary. The petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents. Learned counsel further argues that the complaint, the FIR, the charge-sheet and the order taking cognizance do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner. It is contended that the criminal proceedings are manifestly frivolous, vexatious and constitute an abuse of the process of law, having been instituted only to exert pressure upon the petitioner. It is, therefore, prayed that FIR No. 233/2025 dated 04.06.2025, the charge-sheet dated 26.08.2025, and the order taking cognizance passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir- Champa in Criminal Case No. 744/2025 be quashed in exercise of the 5 inherent powers of this Court. 7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the petition and submits that the allegations made in the FIR, the material collected during the course of investigation, and the charge- sheet filed before the competent Court clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences punishable under Sections 420, 409 and 34 of the IPC. It is contended that the present petition, seeking quashment of the FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings, is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is submitted that, pursuant to a complaint regarding financial irregularities in Gram Panchayat Kotmisonar, a four-member enquiry committee was constituted, which found that the petitioner, while functioning as Panchayat Secretary, along with the co-accused Sarpanch, had withdrawn and utilized an amount of ₹25,13,528/- from the 15th Finance Commission funds without proper resolutions of the Gram Panchayat and in violation of the prescribed procedure. The enquiry report formed the basis for registration of the FIR, and during investigation sufficient material was collected to file the charge-sheet against the petitioner. 8. Learned State Counsel further submits that the plea of the petitioner that he had no authority over the Panchayat funds is a matter of defence, which involves disputed questions of fact and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (or Section 482 CrPC, as applicable). Whether the petitioner acted beyond his authority or in connivance with the co- 6 accused can only be determined after appreciation of evidence during trial. It is further argued that the investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed after collecting documentary as well as oral evidence. The learned trial Court has also taken cognizance of the offences. At this stage, the High Court is not required to meticulously examine the sufficiency or reliability of the evidence, as the same falls within the exclusive domain of the trial Court. It is lastly submitted that the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner. The present case does not fall within any of the categories warranting exercise of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 10. 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 7 under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.). 11. 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 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. 12. 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, 8 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. 13. 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 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 9 to establish their respective cases before the trial Court in accordance with law. 14. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is made out. 15. In the present case, the FIR was registered pursuant to a complaint alleging financial irregularities and embezzlement of Gram Panchayat funds. It is not in dispute that an enquiry was conducted by a duly constituted committee, which submitted its report pointing out the alleged financial irregularities and attributing a specific role to the petitioner along with the co-accused. On the basis of the said enquiry report, the FIR came to be registered, the investigation was carried out, and thereafter a charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. The learned trial Court has also taken cognizance of the offences. 16. The principal contention of the petitioner is that, being the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, he had no independent authority to sanction or utilize the Panchayat funds and that the responsibility, if any, rested upon the Sarpanch. Whether the petitioner had acted only in discharge of his official duties, whether he had any role in the alleged withdrawal or utilization of the funds, whether the withdrawals were made pursuant to valid resolutions of the Gram Panchayat, and whether 10 the petitioner acted in concert with the co-accused are all disputed questions of fact which necessarily require appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence. Such questions cannot be adjudicated while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 17. Likewise, the plea that the enquiry was conducted without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, that the proceedings are actuated by political rivalry, that the petitioner has been falsely implicated, or that he derived no personal benefit from the alleged transactions, are all matters of defence. These contentions cannot be examined or conclusively determined in proceedings seeking quashing of the FIR or the charge-sheet. It shall be open to the petitioner to raise all such pleas before the trial Court at the appropriate stage. 18. At this stage, this Court is only required to examine whether the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation, if accepted at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. Upon such examination, this Court finds that the allegations in the FIR, coupled with the enquiry report and the material collected during investigation, prima facie disclose the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioner. It cannot, therefore, be said that the prosecution is manifestly frivolous, inherently improbable or falls within any of the well-recognized categories warranting interference under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 11 19. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra), and the other judgments referred to hereinabove, this Court cannot undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or record findings on disputed factual issues while considering a petition for quashing. The contentions raised by the petitioner are matters to be established during the course of trial on the basis of evidence. 20. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not fall within the exceptional categories warranting exercise of the inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing the FIR, the charge-sheet or the consequential criminal proceedings. 21. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu