1 2026:CGHC:4653-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1253 of 2023 • Raja Sahu S/o Mr. Tukaram Sahu, Aged About 32 Years R/o Damakhesda, P.S. Simga, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Superintendent Of Police, Station, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 2. Station House Officer, Police Station Simga, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 3. Amit Tiwari Station Presently Posted As Station House Officer Of Police Station Simga, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 4. Prakash Dhapke, S/o Nathu Ji Dhapke, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Khurajgaon, Nagpur Rural, District Nagpur Maharashtra. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate. For State/Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy G.A. For Respondent No.4 : Dr. Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 28.01.2026 Heard Mr. Raza Ali, counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents No.1 & 2 and Dr. Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, counsel appearing for the respondent No.4. DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 1. The present is a miscellaneous criminal petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’) claiming for quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No.260/2022, registered at Police Station Simga, District Baloda-Bazar for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and also for compensation for wrongful arrest and detention of the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused in the offence of Crime No.260/222 registered at Police Station Simga, District Baloda-Bazar (C.G.), on the complaint made by the respondent No.4. In the month of November, 2020, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Simga organized a function on the occasion of Sant Satguru Dhani Dharamdas Sahab Ji and the State Government has sanctioned the fund of Rs.10 Lakhs for the said function. The said function was to be organized at Kabirdharam Nagar Damakheda on 29.11.2020. The complainant received an information under RTI and collected the bills and vouchers submitted by the Gram Panchayat, Damakheda with respect to the expenditure of the function held on 29.11.2020 and raised the issue that Gram Panchayat has not made any expenditure in the said function. By their collision, they withdrawn the money for the said function by forging the bills and vouchers. A complaint has been made by the respondent No.4, upon which, the FIR for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of IPC was registered against the Sarpanch and Secretary of Gram Panchayat of Damakheda and other persons. The said proposed accused persons were assisted by the present petitioner, who is a practicing advocate and applied for bail for them. By dissatisfying with the assistance of the 3 petitioner to the proposed accused persons, he has also been threatened by the police authorities and inform the Bar Association Raipur on 10.10.2022 and thereafter he has also been implicated as an accused in the said offence. The petitioner was also arrested on 06.11.2022 and he was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class for grant of judicial remand, however, he has been released on bail by the learned remand Court. The petitioner, thereafter, has filed the present miscellaneous criminal petition, challenging the FIR and also for illegal detention. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegation made in the FIR or complaint is not against the petitioner, but against the other accused persons. He further submits that he is a practicing advocate and in due course of his profession, he moved bail application for other accused persons. He was not having any personal interest in the matter yet, he has been made an accused in the offence only to restrict him to provide legal assistance to the accused persons. There is no allegation that he collided with the other accused persons in preparing the forged bill or received any monetary gain in the alleged offence. There is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner in the FIR, so that he may be put to trial and to prosecute the case registered against him, therefore, the impugned FIR may be quashed registered against the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there are allegations against the petitioner also that he gave shelter to the other accused knowingly that, he is the accused in the said offence and he was to be arrested. There are sufficient material available against 4 the petitioner also in the case diary, which prima facie shows his involvement in the alleged offence, therefore, FIR at this stage cannot be quashed. 5. Dr. Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, counsel appearing for the respondent No.4, who has also filed his ‘Vakalatnama’ on behalf of respondent No.4. On a pointed query made from him that whether he wishes to file reply on behalf of respondent No.4 in the writ petition or not, he fairly submits that it is not require in the present case. On a further query made from the counsel for the respondent No.4, as to whether respondent No.4 has any grievance with the petitioner or not, then counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 fairly submits that respondent No.4 has no grievance against the petitioner. The FIR was registered against Sarpanch, Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Damakheda and other persons, who are facing the trial and the petitioner happens to be a counsel of the co-accused persons. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. From perusal of the impugned FIR, it transpires that the allegations levelled against the Panchayat Office bearers that they produced forged bills and vouchers and withdraw the amount sanctioned for function organized on 29.11.2020 on the occasions of 625th Birth Ceremony of Sant Satguru Dhani Dharamdas Sahab Ji, for which, State Government has sanctioned Rs.10 Lakhs. 8. It is not disputed that petitioner is a practicing advocate and have represented the other accused persons in the criminal case registered against them. From the statement made by Dr. Shrivastava, who is representing the complainant/respondent No.4 that he is having no 5 grievance with the petitioner, as he is an advocate, who is representing the accused persons in the criminal case. There appears to be no material prima facie against the petitioner in the FIR and it is the allegation levelled against the Panchayat Office bearers that they are indulged in the alleged offence. 9. In the matter of Sundar Babu and Others Versus State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 244, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 7, which is as under:- “7. Though the scope for interference while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited, but it can be made in cases as spelt out in State of Haryana Versus Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426. The illustrative examples laid down therein are as follows: (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102) (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are 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. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Sec.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but 6 constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” Even a cursory perusal of the complaint shows that the case at hand falls within Category (7) of the illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal (supra). 10. Further, in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Another Versus State of Uttranchal and Others, reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 46, which as under:- “46. The court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused. On analysis of the aforementioned cases, we are of the opinion that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts under Section 482 7 Cr.P.C. though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when it is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the statute itself and in the aforementioned cases. In view of the settled legal position, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.” 11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the status of the petitioner that he being an advocate appeared for other co- accused persons in the case before the learned trial Court. There is no allegation levelled against him in the FIR that he in any manner indulged in committing the offence of either preparing forged bills and vouchers or withdrawing money through the said forged bills and vouchers are participated in the said function, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case, where the accusation of the petitioner in the impugned FIR may be quashed. 12. As a fallout, the instant petition is allowed and the FIR of Crime No.260/2022 registered at Police Station Simga, District Baloda-Bazar against the petitioner, Raja Sahu and his accusation in the said FIR is hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Deepti Jha