1 2026:CGHC:6954-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 420 of 2026 • Umesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Ghanshyam Sahu, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village- Khamariya P.S.- Chandnu, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Station House Officer Chandnu P.S. Chandnu District Bemetara C.G. 2 - Anuranjan Kumar Singh, Assistant Commissioner Cooperative and Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bemetara, District Bemetara C.G. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For State : Mr. N.K. Jaiswal, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 09-02-2026 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.02.13 20:10:38 +0530 2 may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the F.I.R. / Crime No. 74/2025 registered at P.S. Chandnu, Dist- Bemetara (C.G.) for the offence punishable U/s 318(4), 3(5) of B.N.S. on 24.11.2025, the charge sheet in connection with Crime No. 74/2025 filed for the offence punishable U/s 318(4), 3(5) of B.N.S. on 10.12.2025 and the Order of taking cognizance on 23.12.2025 in Criminal Case No. 8875/2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara, Dist- Bemetara (C.G.), in the interest of justice.” 2. The petitioner is an accused in the offence of Crime No.74/2025 registered at P.S. Chandnu, District Bemetara for the offence under Section 318(4) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023. The said FIR was registered on the instance of the Assistant Commissioner Cooperative cum Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bemetara. It is alleged in the FIR that the present petitioner is In- charge Society Manager, Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Mau. It is alleged that during his tenure a complaint was received against him with respect to procurement of paddy and committed the offence of cheating. The complaint was enquired and it was found that the co-accused Sanatdhar Diwan has not sold the paddy of his field, but his adhiyadar has sold his paddy by colliding with the petitioner. It is also alleged that in the enquiry it was found that on 21-11-2025, the token was issued to sell the paddy in the society of 19 registered farmers and approximate quantity of paddy was 3 1207.20 quintal against which 16 registered farmers have sold their paddy which comes to total 978.00 quintal and 3 farmers have not sold their paddy, those 3 farmers who have not sold their paddy including the farmer Sanatdhar Diwan and there is no entry of selling any paddy against his token, whereas, in the second copy obtained from the society it was found that against the token of Sanatdhar Diwan total 58.80 quintal and 61.60 quintal paddy was endorsed which is sold to the society. There are similar allegation with respect to other farmers also which has been detailed in the FIR. After investigation charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and co-accused Sanatdhar Diwan. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is acted in bonafidy and has purchased the paddy from the farmers in whose favour token were issued. Co-accused Sanatdhar Diwan has also sold his paddy to the society through his Adhiyadar and relevant entries have been made in the official record. There is no any misappropriation of amount and whatever paddy have been purchased, the sale consideration have been paid to the seller in accordance with law. There is no complaint from any of the farmers that he has not paid the sale consideration of the paddy of the farmers, even there is not shortage of paddy in the society and relevant entries have been made in the records. He would further submit that co-accused Sanatdhar Diwan has filed CRMP No.142/2026 before this Court in which interim order has been passed in his favour on 4 19-01-2026, the case of the petitioner is also similar to the case of Sanatdhar Diwan and he is also entitled for the same relief as has been granted to him. There is no sufficient material in the charge sheet against the petitioner to proceed with the trial of the case and therefore, the FIR, charge sheet, order taking cognizance dated 23-12-2025 in Criminal Case No.8875/2025 may be quashed against the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that there is sufficient material against the petitioner that he being the Society Manager of Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Mau committed various irregularities in purchasing paddy from the farmers under the Government scheme and thereby committed gross irregularities. From the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Mau alleges the irregularities of the present petitioner and from the statement of the witnesses available in the charge sheet the act of the petitioner clearly demonstrates the ingredients of offence of cheating, therefore, his case is distinguishable to the case of Sanatdhar Diwan and his petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & 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 5 cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 528 of BNSS/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 528 of BNSS/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. 7. From perusal of the material annexed with the petition and also from the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, it transpires that there are certain allegations of irregularities committed by the petitioner during purchase of paddy in the society. From the statement of the complainant as well as the other witnesses, it further transpires that it is the petitioner who with collision of Sanatdhar Diwan committed the irregularities in purchasing paddy, issuance of token and irregularities of similar nature with respect to other farmers. Whether or not the petitioner committed any offence or the records are up to date and all the entries have been made or there is any irregularity in paddy purchase are the disputed question of facts which requires detailed evidence, however, there is prima facie sufficient evidence against the petitioner that he be being the In- charge Society Manager of Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Mau at the 6 relevant point of time committed irregularities in paddy purchase and there are sufficient prima facie ingredients available in the charge sheet against him to proceed with the case. 8. The case of the petitioner is distinguishable to the case of Sanatdhar Diwan as he is farmer and the petitioner is the In- charge Society Manager in whose possession the entire records are there. The allegation against Sanatdhar Diwan was that in place of him his adhiyadar had sold the paddy. Therefore, even if an interim order has been passed in favour of Sanatdhar Diwan, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present petition. 9. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the present petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil