1 CGHC010140032026 2026:CGHC:32548-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No.1024 of 2026 1 - Manoharlal Choudhary, S/o Late Umed Ram Choudhary Aged About 65 Years R/o Om Shanti Vihar Colony (Plot No.14), Kotra Road, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 2 - District Magistrate Ambikapur, Sarguja, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. Respondent(s) For Petitioner (s) : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Baghel, GA Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. 29.07.2026 1. Heard Ms. Priyanka Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents/State. Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 528 of BNSS with the following prayers:- “It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR No.694/1992, registered at Police Station Ambikapur (C.G.) (then M.P.) for offence under Section 420, 468, 467, 471, 34 of IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (Annexure-P/1) so far as the petitioner is concerned.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the co-accused namely one Amir Ali was then posted as Joint Collector(Land Acquisition Officer) Ambikapur, Sarguja and further he has acquired some portion of a land of a farmer namely Amarsai of village Rewapur, P.S. Ambikapur which is khasra no.478, rakba 0.599 situated at village Rewapur as it was declared to be in the submerged area. Further, a compensation amount of Rs. 12,840.55/- for the acquired land was prepared and was approved as per the directions of the collector Sarguja following the survey and rules of the revenue Department for the land falling in the submerged area. A proposal for acquiring the land of submergence area situated at village Rewapur Patwari Halka No.31 Revenue Inspector Region Darima Tehsil Ambikapur District Sarguja for Shyam Ghunghuta Project was passed. Thereafter an award was passed by the Collector, Ambikapur on 30.09.1988 for land acquisition proceedings in the Revenue Case no. 46/A-82/86- 87.That, as per clause 19 of form 13 of the award, the 3 compensation amount of 12,840.55/ was to be given to the land owner, one Amarsai s/o Manraj Gond for land bearing khasra no. 478 rakba 0.599 situated at village Rewapur. That, subsequently in the year 1992, co-accused namely Amir Ali, who was then posted as joint collector (land Acquisition Officer) Ambikapur, Sarguja got a cheque ready with the help of his subordinate employee Md. Sabir posted as clerk, land acquisition branch and kept the same with himself. Thereafter co-accused persons with a criminal intent opened a saving account at post office court Branch Ambikapur in the name of Amarsai by providing false details and with the help of one Anup kashyap, portrayed some another person as Amarsai and recognised/identified him to be the same. Petitioner being employee of post office, in compliance of his official duties had opened the account. The said forged cheque prepared by Amir Ali with the help of other co-accused whereby an amount of Rs. 5,12,840.55/- which was written instead of 12,840.55/- as figure '5' was written infront of 12 and the word 'five' was written in front of 'twelve', was withdrew from the post office. Subsequently, investigation was carried out and villager Amarsai refused receival of any money. Further District Statistic Officer intimated the Collector, Sarguja that the land acquisition compensation award of Rs.5,12,840.55/ has been fraudulently withdrawn on 29.09.1992 by the name of affected villager Amarsai and he has stated that no amount of money was given /received by him. As a result, Collector, District Sarguja has 4 instructed to file a criminal case. After initial investigation, the matter was forwarded to the State Economic Offence Investigation Bureau(M,P) thereby the offence was also registered as Crime No.39/1996. During investigation the documents regarding land acquisition was seized and it was found that in the said documents the khasra number of the land was mentioned but the notice to receive compensation amount was not issued neither was served. Several witnesses examination was conducted and was found that, the co-accused namely Amir Ali being a public servant has deceitfully submitted false documents and mislead the government offices as to make forged signature of the affected villager Amarsai and had changed the amount as Rs. 5,12,840.55/- instead of 12,840.55/- and further deposited the same before the concern department and received the compensation amount. It was found that co-accused namely one Anup kumar Kashyap was also involved in the said crime as he has fraudulently opened the saving account in the name of Amarsai by portraying some another person and details of account holder was identified by him only, thereafter prima-facie a case was registered against the petitioner and other co- accused as crime No.39/1996 at Economic Offence Investigation Bureau (Madhya Pradesh) for offence u/s 420,467,468,471,34 IPC, An order was issued by the Additional Secretary ,Law & Legislative Department, State of Chhattisgarh dated 08.06,2016 5 whereby the competent authority has granted sanction to prosecute the Co-accused namely Amir Ali, then posted as joint Collector, Ambikapur, Sarguja and Co-accused namely Anup Kumar Kashyap, Assistant Grade-III, office of District Collector, Sarguja. Subsequently a petition for quashment of the said FIR by another co-accused named Md. Sabir Ali was preferred before this Hon,ble court whereby the court on ground of Non sanctioning of prosecution order have disposed of the petition in favour of applicant. It is pertinent to mention here that, the present petitioner requested competent authorities that if any copy of Final report has been filed against the petitioner, the same may be provided to him. In response to the same, the court of First Additional sessions judge, Ambikapur, where the case for filing the closure report in relation to another co-accused Md. Sabir Ali is pending, provided the entire order sheet where it is specifically mentioned that no final report/challan has been presented against the petitioner. Competent authority in absence of any final report against the petitioner, should have submitted the closure report or any other order in respect of the petitioner regarding the conclusion of the case, but till date no clearance has been given in favour of the petitioner regarding the conclusion of the case, and as a result petitioner is facing grave hardships as his pensionary benefits and retiral dues have been kept in abeyance. Hence, this petition has been preferred by the petitioner. 6 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the said matter, without any involvement direct or indirect, in the said matter. The petitioner, as a diligent employee performed his duty of collecting document/application for opening of account and proceeded with the same in accordance to the prescribed procedure. The petitioner had neither played any part nor was involved in any sort of any fraud, as he had only received the application for opening of saving account. He had not forged any signature nor had recognised the applicant portraying to be Amarsai. The police authorities till date have not completed the investigation and have not filed any final report/ challan, against the petitioner, which has been very specifically mentioned by the learned court of First Additional Session Judge, Ambikapur in its order dated 31.01.2026. The police authorities cannot keeps any investigation pending against the petition for indefinite period of time, violating the provisions of section 193 of BNSS. No prosecution sanction order has been released against the petitioner and petitioner being working as a public servant, is protected under this provision. She further submits that petitioner has been inflicted in this matter to destroy petitioner's reputation and even after the order issued by Additional Secretary regarding the prosecution sanction order, petitioner's name does not find place in the same. The agencies have implicated the petitioner in the said offence, 7 without obtaining prosecution sanction from any competent authority. After receiving the cheque, the petitioner has diligently checked the same for any overwriting or if cheque was torn out, and could not find any such type of discrepancies and thenafter only after obtaining clearance from his superior, post office saving bank account formalities was completed. The matter is pending since 1992, and police authorities even after not having any cogent evidence against petitioner or sanction order, as specifically mentioned in order sheet dated 31.01.2026 that final report against petitioner is not filed till date, have not proceeded with the submission of closure report in favour of petitioner. The overact by the investigating agencies is not only pure harassment of petitioner but is also against his right of speedy trial. Due to non- filing of closure report, the petitioner is being devoid of his pensionary benefits as well, as being a retired person, his right to life is being jeopardized for want of pensionary benefits. Therefore, the petition may kindly be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that incident occurred in the year 1992 and since then the matter remained pending, upon which personal affidavit of the Director General of Police, State of Chhattisgarh was called twice and upon scrutiny of the matter, a recommendation for minor punishment was made by the DGP and resultantly the erring officials have been punished with minor punishment, as is evident from the document annexed in the petition. Therefore, 8 material collected are sufficient to put the petitioner and it cannot be said that no prima-facie case against the petitioner is made out. He would further submit that jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS is extremely limited as FIR and charge- sheet cannot be quashed particularly when there is sufficient evidence available on record to put the accused to trial. He would further submit that all submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner relates to question of fact, that can be considered during the course of trial and that cannot be considered at this stage and that too in proceeding under Section 528 of BNSS as all ingredients of the aforesaid offences are available to put the petitioner to trial, as such it is the case where the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length as well as all other documents annexed with the present 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 9 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.). 8. 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 (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. 9. 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 10 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. 10. 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. Unless all these parameters are cumulatively satisfied, the High Court ought not to interfere in exercise of its 11 inherent jurisdiction, leaving the parties to establish their respective cases before the trial Court in accordance with law. 11. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the allegations contained in the impugned First Information Report and the material collected during 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 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The FIR was lodged against the petitioner and other co-accused persons for embezzlement of amount alleging that they portrayed some other persons against the actual person and received money illegally. It is also to be taken note of the fact that the incident occurred in the year 1992 and since then the matter was kept pending, upon which personal affidavit of the Director General of Police, State of Chhattisgarh was called by this Court twice and upon scrutiny of the matter, a recommendation for minor punishment was made by the DGP and resultantly the erring officials have been punished with minor punishment. Thus, the criminal law has not been set in motion merely on the basis of bald allegations. 12. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated, as the petitioner, as a diligent employee performed his duty of collecting document/application for opening of account and proceeded with the same in 12 accordance to the prescribed procedure. The petitioner had neither played any part nor was involved in any sort of any fraud, as he had only received the application for opening of saving account. The futher contention of the petitioner that the police authorities till date have not completed the investigation and have not filed any final report/ challan is not sustainable, as the erring officials of the case have already been punished for their negligence in the case. In the opinion of this Court, all these submissions constitute the defence of the petitioner and involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS and the present matter falls exclusively within the domain of the trial Court and cannot be examined by this Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction. 13. Upon cumulative consideration of the allegations contained in the FIR, this Court is satisfied that the allegations, if taken at their face value and accepted for the limited purpose of the present proceedings, disclose the commission of cognizable offences requiring adjudication before the competent criminal Court. The allegations cannot be characterised as inherently absurd, manifestly frivolous or so improbable that no prudent person could reach a prima facie conclusion regarding the commission of the alleged officencs. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings is to be exercised 13 sparingly, with circumspection and only in the rarest of rare cases. At the stage of investigation or after submission of the charge- sheet, the High Court is not expected to embark upon an appreciation of evidence or adjudicate the correctness of the rival versions. The decision in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra) reiterates that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS), the High Court ought not to undertake a mini trial or evaluate the defence of the accused at the threshold. 14. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as well as in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra), the High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, does not conduct a mini trial, appreciate the evidentiary value of the material collected during investigation, or record findings on disputed factual issues, all of which fall within the exclusive domain of the trial Court. 15. 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 Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and reaffirmed in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra) warranting exercise of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS The allegations contained in the FIR prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences requiring adjudication upon evidence before the competent 14 criminal Court. This Court, therefore, finds no exceptional circumstance warranting interference with the impugned FIR. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 16. It is, however, made clear that the observations recorded herein are confined only to the adjudication of the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case, which shall be decided independently by the competent trial Court on the basis of the evidence led before it. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Nirala