1 2026:CGHC:6438-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 387 of 2026 1 - Dilip Kumar Yadav S/o Shankar Yadav Aged About 46 Years R/o House No. 30, Shantipara And Tehsil Lundra, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh 2 - Govind Prashad S/o Sitaram Behra Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No. 09, Sodipara, Baboli District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Lundra, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh 2 - District Food Officer District- Surguja Chhattisgarh (Complainant) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.02.06 10:49:12 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 05 .02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/ respondent. 2. The present CrMP under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the FIR bearing its No. 14/2026 registered at Police Station Lundra, Dist- Surguja (CG) for the offence under Sections 316 (5), 3(5) of B.N.S. on 19.01.2026. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were working as Society Manager and Computer Operator respectively at the Paddy Procurement Centre, Kundikala, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. On 18.01.2025, a joint inspection was conducted at the said Centre by the District Food Officer, District Marketing Officer and Nodal Officer, State Warehouse, during which physical verification of stock was allegedly carried out and an alleged shortage of 4201 bags of rice (1680.4 quintals) was shown on the basis of online records, and a Panchnama was prepared. That the said physical verification was conducted in a highly casual, mechanical and arbitrary manner, without adopting any scientific 3 or systematic method of counting the bags kept in heaps, and in fact all the stocks alleged to be short were physically available at the Centre. That the calculation slip prepared during the inspection itself disclosed glaring arithmetical errors, wherein a substantial number of bags were wrongly shown as short solely due to incorrect calculations, thereby rendering the entire inspection and alleged shortage wholly unreliable and incorrect. That solely on the basis of such defective and erroneous physical verification, the District Food Officer, Surguja, vide order dated 18.01.2026, directed the Station House Officer, Police Station Lundra, District Surguja, to register an FIR against the Petitioners, pursuant to which FIR No.14/2026 dated 19.01.2026 came to be lodged for offences punishable under Sections 316(5) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. That the Petitioners had earlier challenged the said direction by filing W.P.(Cr.) No.55/2026 before this Hon’ble Court; however, during the pendency thereof, the FIR was registered, and consequently the said writ petition was withdrawn with liberty vide order dated 29.01.2026, and pursuant thereto the present petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit It is respectfully submitted that the impugned FIR is illegal, arbitrary and a gross abuse of the process of law. Even after registration of the FIR, Petitioner No.1 submitted a detailed representation-cum-affidavit before the Collector concerned, clearly stating that the entire stock was safe and intact and seeking a fair and scientific re- 4 verification; however, the same was ignored and no re-inquiry was ordered, reflecting complete non-application of mind and violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned FIR has been registered mechanically and solely on the basis of a patently defective inspection report. The very foundation of the FIR, namely the alleged shortage of 4201 bags of rice, is demonstrably false and based on glaring arithmetical errors apparent from the calculation slip itself, thereby rendering the allegation wholly unreliable. The physical verification conducted on 18.01.2025 was casual, arbitrary and unscientific, without proper counting of bags kept in heaps or fair reconciliation of physical stock with online records, despite the fact that the alleged stock was physically available. It is further submitted that the impugned direction dated 18.01.2026 for registration of the FIR was issued without any preliminary enquiry or opportunity of explanation. The FIR does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged under Sections 316(5) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, nor any criminal intent or dishonest misappropriation on the part of the Petitioners. The dispute, if any, is purely administrative in nature, and continuation of criminal proceedings would result in grave miscarriage of justice, warranting quashment of the impugned FIR. 5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent would submit that once the FIR has been registered, it has to be investigated and taken to its logical end. 5 After investigation charge-sheet has been filed. Thus, at this stage, no interference is warranted in view of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021 (M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others) and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR and document annexed with the petition. 7. 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. 8. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or 6 otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 9. From perusal of the FIR which has been annexed with the petition as Annexure-P/4, it transpires that there are allegation that certain quantity of paddy was found short in the Paddy Procurement Centre, Kundikala and it is difference in its procurement and physical verification. The petitioners were Society Manager and Computer Operator respectively. The nature of allegation requires the investigation from the official records for which the FIR has been registered and the investigation is going on. At this stage, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie offence appears for registration of the FIR or to quash the same. 10. After having gone through the allegations made in the impugned FIR and the charge-sheet, in our humble opinion it cannot be said that no offence whatsoever is disclosed against the petitioner as there is allegation of cheating and forgery of document etc. and in the light of judgment passed by the Apex Court in Neeharika 7 Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we do not find any good ground for interference as it cannot be said that no offence is disclosed. 11. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika