1 CGHC010271032026 2026:CGHC:32186-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1951 of 2026 1 - Sunil Kumar Janghel S/o Khuman Raj Janghel Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Dhodha, Police Station Gandai District K. C. G C.G. 2 - Ramsingh Kashyap S/o Kejau Ram Kashyap Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Renda, Khamhi, Police Station Singhanpuri District Kabirdham C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Gandai District K.C.G C.G. 2 - Rajkumar Solanki S/o Late Dheerajlal Solanki Aged About 47 Years Posted As Deputy Director (Agriculture), District Office, Khairagarh, District K.C.G C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankush Borkar, Advocate along with Mr. N. K. Guleri, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 28/07/2026 1. Heard Mr. Ankush Borkar, along with Mr. N. K. Guleri, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the Respondent/State. ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.07.29 12:06:07 +0530 2 2. The instant CRMP has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer : “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition and further be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 188/2026 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhuikhadan, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) including cognizance order dated 17.06.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhuikhadan, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Final Report No. 143/2026 dated 16.05.2026 for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and FIR bearing Crime No. 402/2025 dated 21.11.2025 registered at Police Station – Gandai, District – K.C.G. (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (to the extent of the petitioners), in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts of the case is that on the basis of a written complaint dated 21.11.2025 submitted by the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Khairagarh, Crime No. 402/2025 was registered at Police Station Gandai for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging that the petitioners and other co-accused, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, used forged documents, fabricated sharecropping (Adhiya) agreements, manipulated crop verification reports, and illegally submitted crop insurance applications through CSC IDs to fraudulently obtain benefits under the Crop Insurance Scheme. During investigation, the police seized various records from the Agriculture 3 Department, Insurance Company and Revenue Authorities and alleged that the geo-tagged photographs did not correspond with the Khasra numbers mentioned in the verification reports, that forged agreements had been used for obtaining crop insurance claims, and that insurance amounts were credited to the bank accounts of the accused persons without the consent of the actual landowners. Upon completion of the investigation, Final Report No. 143/2026 dated 16.05.2026 was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhuikhadan, District K.C.G., who, by order dated 17.06.2026, took cognizance of the offences and registered Criminal Case No. 188/2026, which is presently pending consideration at the stage of arguments before charge. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR, Final Report No. 143/2026 dated 16.05.2026 and the cognizance order dated 17.06.2026 are wholly illegal, arbitrary and amount to an abuse of the process of law. It is contended that even if the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation are accepted in their entirety, they do not disclose the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioners. Petitioner No.1 was discharging his official duties as Block Coordinator of the Insurance Company, while Petitioner No.2 was functioning as a CSC operator. Neither of the petitioners is alleged to have prepared, forged or fabricated any verification report, sharecropping agreement or any other document. Their role was confined to processing applications on the basis of documents furnished by the concerned farmers and landowners, and there is no material to establish that they acted with dishonest intention, derived any wrongful gain, or had knowledge of the alleged forged documents. The allegation of criminal conspiracy is also vague, omnibus and unsupported by any material demonstrating a meeting of minds or active 4 participation of the petitioners in the alleged fraud. 5. He further submits that the investigation proceeds merely on suspicion and assumptions without any prima facie evidence connecting the petitioners with the alleged offences. The petitioners have been implicated only because they were associated with the crop insurance process in their official capacities, whereas the alleged beneficiaries of the insurance claims were the farmers. There is no material to show that the petitioners sanctioned or disbursed the insurance amounts or played any role beyond the discharge of their official functions. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance mechanically without proper application of mind to the facts and material available on record. In the absence of any legally admissible material establishing the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to misuse of the criminal justice process and cause unnecessary harassment. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order and all consequential proceedings be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the impugned FIR, charge-sheet and the order taking cognizance have been passed strictly in accordance with law and do not warrant interference in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. It is submitted that the investigation has revealed sufficient prima facie material indicating that the petitioners, along with the other co-accused, acted in concert to fraudulently obtain benefits under the Crop Insurance Scheme by using forged and fabricated documents as genuine. During the course of investigation, the inquiry records, crop verification reports, revenue records, geo-tagged photographs, bank account 5 details and other relevant documents were seized and examined. The investigation revealed that the Khasra numbers mentioned in the crop verification reports did not correspond with the geo-tagged locations reflected in the photographs, thereby establishing that the verification reports were forged. It was further found that forged sharecropping (Adhiya) agreements and other fabricated documents were used for obtaining crop insurance benefits, causing wrongful loss to the Government and corresponding wrongful gain to the beneficiaries. 7. Learned State counsel further submits that the material collected during investigation specifically discloses the involvement of Petitioner No.1, Sunil Kumar Janghel, who, despite being the Block Coordinator of the Insurance Company, actively facilitated the submission and processing of fraudulent crop insurance applications through CSC IDs in violation of the prescribed procedure. Similarly, Petitioner No.2, Ramsingh Kashyap, is alleged to have concealed the CSC ID used for processing such applications, thereby facilitating the commission of the offence. Whether the petitioners acted with dishonest intention, whether they were aware of the forged documents, and whether they were part of the alleged criminal conspiracy are disputed questions of fact which can only be adjudicated upon after appreciation of evidence during trial. At the stage of taking cognizance or framing of charge, the Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out and not to conduct a meticulous appreciation of the evidence. Since the charge-sheet discloses sufficient material connecting the petitioners with the alleged offences, the impugned proceedings cannot be termed as an abuse of the process of law. The petition, therefore, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 6 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the controversy involved in the present case pertains to the scope and ambit of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings at the stage where the investigation has culminated in the filing of the charge- sheet and cognizance has already been taken by the learned Magistrate. The principles governing the exercise of such jurisdiction are well settled. Before adverting to the merits of the rival submissions, it would be apposite to refer to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which delineates the parameters for exercise of inherent powers while considering a prayer for quashing of criminal proceedings. 10. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, 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 FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.) 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 FIR in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of B.N.S.S.), only has to consider whether or not the allegations of FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court 7 has held that:- “23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under: (i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; (ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; (iii) It is only in cases where no 8 cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; (iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). (v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; (vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; (vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; (viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; (ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; (x) Save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process 9 should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;”” 11. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025), while reiterating the settled principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings, has once again emphasized that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised with great caution, circumspection and only in exceptional circumstances. 12. The Apex Court has held that while considering a prayer for quashing of an FIR, charge-sheet or criminal proceedings, the Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial or undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence collected during investigation. The scope of judicial scrutiny at such stage is confined to examining whether the allegations made in the FIR, the material collected during investigation and the charge-sheet, if accepted at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and make out a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 of the BNSS), cannot enter into disputed questions of fact, evaluate the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations, assess the evidentiary value of witness statements, or adjudicate upon the probable defence available to the accused. Such an exercise falls squarely within the province of the trial Court, which alone is competent to appreciate evidence after the parties have led their respective cases. The Apex Court cautioned that where the allegations disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences and 10 the investigating agency has collected material in support thereof, criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the threshold merely because the accused has raised a plausible defence or disputes the correctness of the prosecution case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: “20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:- (i)Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality? (ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. (iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted prosecution/complainant; and/or the material that justifiably refuted it cannot be by is by the such, the prosecution/complainant? (iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such 11 criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. [(See: Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013)]” 14. Considering the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The scope of interference under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is well settled. At this stage, this Court is not required to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or adjudicate upon the correctness of the allegations levelled by the prosecution. The Court is only required to examine whether the allegations contained in the FIR, the material collected during investigation and the charge-sheet, if accepted at their face value, disclose the commission of cognizable offences and make out a prima facie case against the accused. The defence sought to be raised by the petitioners, namely that they were merely discharging their official duties as Block Coordinator and CSC ID holder respectively and had no knowledge of the alleged forged documents, is a matter of evidence, which can appropriately be examined only during the course of trial. 15. From the material collected during investigation, it prima facie appears that the investigating agency has gathered sufficient material indicating the active involvement of the petitioners in facilitating fraudulent crop insurance claims. The charge-sheet alleges that forged crop verification reports and fabricated sharecropping (Adhiya) agreements were utilized for obtaining 12 crop insurance benefits and that Petitioner No.1, while functioning as Block Coordinator of the Insurance Company, actively facilitated the submission of such applications through a concealed CSC ID in violation of the prescribed procedure. The investigation further reveals that the CSC ID was allegedly concealed by Petitioner No.2 and was used for submission of insurance applications of several non-loanee farmers contrary to the rules of the Insurance Company. The investigation also indicates that geo-tagged photographs did not correspond with the Khasra numbers mentioned in the verification reports and that substantial insurance amounts were credited into the accounts of the beneficiaries on the basis of such allegedly forged documents. These allegations, supported by documentary material collected during investigation, cannot be brushed aside at the threshold and certainly require a full-fledged trial. 16. The contention of the petitioners that they neither prepared the forged documents nor derived any pecuniary benefit therefrom constitutes a defence which cannot be examined while exercising inherent jurisdiction. Likewise, the plea that the petitioners merely acted in discharge of their official functions and had no dishonest intention raises disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. Such issues fall exclusively within the domain of the trial Court and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. At this stage, the Court cannot conduct a mini trial or evaluate the evidentiary value of the prosecution material to determine whether the allegations would ultimately result in conviction. 17. In the considered opinion of this Court, the allegations made in the FIR, the material collected during investigation and the charge-sheet disclose the 13 essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners and make out a prima facie case warranting their prosecution. The case does not fall within any of the exceptional categories where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of this Court can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings. No patent illegality, perversity or abuse of the process of law is discernible in the registration of the FIR, submission of the charge-sheet or the order taking cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion and applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, we are of the considered opinion that the allegations contained in the FIR, the material collected during investigation and the charge-sheet, taken at their face value, disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners and warrant their prosecution. The issues raised by the petitioners involve disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence, which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. We find no patent illegality, perversity or abuse of the process of law in the registration of the FIR, submission of the charge-sheet or the order taking cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate so as to warrant interference by this Court. 19. Consequently, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok