CGHC010132722025 2026:CGHC:37314-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1250 of 2025 1 - Chandranath Sahu S/o Late Shri Atama Ram Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Gidhwa, Tehsil Navagarh, District - Bemetra Chhattisgarh 2 - Dinesh Soni S/o Gaya Prashad Aged About 43 Years R/o Kuvra, Tehsil Navgarh, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh 3 - Jhaduram Kosle S/o Shyam Das Aged About 63 Years R/o Kurva, Tehsil Navgarh, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh 4 - Satyanarayan Dehare S/o Sukhram Dehare Aged About 55 Years R/o Andu Ps Chandanu, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, P.S. Nandghat, Dist - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Deputy Registrar Of Cooperative Societies Bemetra Dist - Bemetara Chhattisgarh ...Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioners : Ms Madhunisha Singh, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri SS Baghel, GA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per R amesh Sinha, Chief Justice 20.08.2026 Heard Ms Madhunisha Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri SS Baghel, learned Government Advocate for the State. Crmp1250 of 2025 2 1. The present petition has been preferred under section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the following reliefs:- “A. That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned charge sheet filed by the respondent no. 1 bearing final report no. 208/2023 dated 30.09.2023 in FIR no. 191 of 2022 dated 09.05.2022 under Section 420,409, 120-B, 34 of IPC along with the order of taking cognizance of the Charge sheet dated 22.11.2023 by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Bemetara CG. (Annexure P/1). B. That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order farming charge U/s 120-B, 409,420 read with 34 of the IPC passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Bemetara CG vide impugned order dated 19.02.2025 in Criminal Case no 1766/2023(Annexure P/2) and the consequential proceedings going on in Criminal Case no 1766/2023, before Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Bemetara CG. C. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the Petitioner, in the interest of justice. An affidavit in support of is filed herewith.” 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioners were associated with Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Kunwara, District Bemetara, in the capacity of Branch Manager/Committee Manager, President and Members of the Managing Committee. It is alleged that out Crmp1250 of 2025 3 of the paddy procured during the year 2020-21, about 2600 bags of paddy were lying at the Society and were sent to Bhutda Rice Mill for sale without following the prescribed procedure. On the basis of a written complaint submitted by the then Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bemetara, FIR No.191/2022 came to be registered against the petitioners for offences under Sections 420, 409, 120-B and 34 IPC. After investigation, final report/charge-sheet No.208/2023 dated 30.09.2023 was filed and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara took cognizance thereof on 22.11.2023. Thereafter, by order dated 19.02.2025, charges under Sections 120-B, 409 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC were framed against the petitioners. 3. The material placed on record, however, shows that an inquiry was conducted by the Additional Collector, Bemetara, pursuant to the directions of the Collector, and a detailed report dated 08.04.2022 was submitted. In the said report, it was found that the shortage of paddy in the district was attributable, inter alia, to prolonged storage, non-lifting of paddy in time and adverse weather conditions. In respect of the 2600 bags of paddy at Kunwara Seva Sahakari Samiti, the inquiry report recorded that the paddy appeared to be old, fallen and deteriorated paddy of the year 2020-21, which had been sent to Bhutda Rice Mill for sale without following the prescribed procedure. Significantly, the report recorded that the intention of the Committee Manager did not appear to be dishonest, as he had repeatedly informed the concerned authorities about the availability of the paddy and sought guidance, but no guidance Crmp1250 of 2025 4 was provided and no proper steps were taken by the concerned authorities for its disposal. The report further found failure on the part of several superior departmental officers in discharge of their official duties. The paddy seized from the rice mill and the Society had not been sold and was available for being dealt with in accordance with law. The departmental action against some of the petitioners was subsequently set aside, while in the case of petitioner No.4, the departmental inquiry found no irregularity and he was thereafter promoted. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the allegations contained in the FIR, charge-sheet and the material collected during investigation are taken at their face value, the essential ingredients of Sections 420, 409 and 120-B IPC are not disclosed. It is submitted that there is no allegation of any dishonest inducement, deception, wrongful gain or wrongful loss so as to attract Section 420 IPC. Likewise, there is no material to demonstrate dishonest misappropriation, conversion or disposal of the entrusted property for attracting Section 409 IPC. The allegation essentially concerns non- compliance with the prescribed departmental procedure in dealing with old and deteriorated paddy. Learned counsel further submits that the Additional Collector's inquiry report is a material document which completely negatives any dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners. The report specifically records that the Committee Manager had repeatedly approached the higher authorities seeking guidance regarding the paddy lying at the Society and that no guidance was Crmp1250 of 2025 5 supplied to him. It is contended that prosecution has failed to disclose any material indicating an agreement or meeting of minds amongst the petitioners to commit any illegal act, which is indispensable for constituting an offence under Section 120-B IPC. It is also pointed out that the entire quantity of paddy had been seized and remained unsold and, therefore, there was no demonstrated wrongful gain or corresponding financial loss to the Government. 5. Relying upon State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 9 SCC 148, Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59, and R. Nagender Yadav v. State of Telangana, (2023) 2 SCC 195, learned counsel submits that continuation of the criminal proceedings, in the facts of the present case, would amount to abuse of the process of law. He therefore prays that the entire criminal proceedings be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents /State opposes the petition and submits that the petitioners were responsible for the management of the Society and the paddy entrusted to it. It is contended that the paddy was sent to the rice mill without following the prescribed procedure and, therefore, the allegations disclose commission of offences under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B read with Section 34 IPC. Learned State counsel submits that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or examine the defence of the accused. According to him, the Crmp1250 of 2025 6 charge-sheet and the material collected during investigation disclose sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners and the petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. In Bhajan Lal, (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court illustrated the circumstances in which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised. The principle relevant to the present case is that quashing may be justified 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. 9. Likewise, in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, while cautioning that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court simultaneously reiterated that where the allegations in the FIR do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence, or where the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are absent, the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of law. It has been held that :- Crmp1250 of 2025 7 “13. The power of quashing criminal proceedings has to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and the court cannot be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of allegations made in the FIR/complaint, unless the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion. The extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice. However, the Court, under its inherent powers, can neither intervene at an uncalled for stage nor can it "soft-pedal the course of justice" at a crucial stage of investigation/proceedings. The provisions of Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as "CrPC") are a device to advance justice and not to frustrate it. The power of judicial review is discretionary, however, it must be exercised to prevent the miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave errors and to ensure that stream of administration of justice remains clean and pure. However, there are no limits of power of the Court, but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be Crmp1250 of 2025 8 exercised in invoking these powers. (Vide State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha, Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.31 and Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. 32)” 10. In the present case, the principal allegation against the petitioners is that approximately 2600 bags of paddy were sent from the Society to Bhutda Rice Mill without following the prescribed procedure. Mere procedural irregularity, however, cannot by itself constitute an offence under Section 409 IPC. The essential element of criminal breach of trust is dishonest misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal of the property in violation of the legal mode of discharge of the trust. 11. Insofar as the offence under Section 409 IPC is concerned, the prosecution is required to establish not merely entrustment of the property but also dishonest misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal thereof in the manner contemplated under Section 405 IPC. In the matter of N. Raghavender v. State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI, (2021) 18 SCC 70, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that entrustment of public property and dishonest misappropriation, or, use thereof are the sine qua non for constituting an offence under Section 409 IPC. The Court further held that unless it is proved that the accused was entrusted with the property which he was duty-bound to account for and that he committed criminal breach of trust, Section 409 IPC may not be attracted. Crmp1250 of 2025 9 12. In the case at hand, the material relied upon by the prosecution does not disclose any dishonest misappropriation or conversion of the paddy by the petitioners. On the contrary, the Additional Collector's report specifically records that the paddy was old and deteriorated paddy of the year 2020-21, that the petitioners had repeatedly informed the concerned authorities regarding its availability and had sought guidance, and that no such guidance was provided. The report further records that the paddy seized from the rice mill and the Society had not been sold. Thus, the foundational element of dishonest misappropriation, which is indispensable for Section 409 IPC, is conspicuously absent. 13. So far as Section 420 IPC is concerned, the offence of cheating requires deception and dishonest or fraudulent inducement. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah (supra), emphasized that dishonest intention is the foundation of the offence of cheating and observed: “The mere inability of the appellant to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, as it is this mens rea which is the crux of the offence.” 14. Applying the aforesaid principle, there is no allegation or material in the present case showing that the petitioners deceived or dishonestly induced any person to deliver property. There is also no material Crmp1250 of 2025 10 indicating that the petitioners intended to cause wrongful gain to themselves or wrongful loss to the Government. The inquiry report, which forms part of the material placed before the Court, rather negatives the allegation of dishonest intention. The fact that the prescribed procedure was not followed may constitute an administrative or departmental irregularity, but, in the absence of the requisite dishonest intention and the other statutory ingredients, it cannot automatically be converted into an offence under Section 420 IPC. 15. The charge under Section 120-B IPC is also not sustainable on the material available on record. Criminal conspiracy necessarily requires an agreement or meeting of minds between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or to commit a lawful act by illegal means. Such agreement or meeting of minds is the sine qua non for constituting the offence of criminal conspiracy. In the present case, there is no material on record to prima facie establish any agreement, meeting of minds or concerted action amongst the petitioners to commit any illegal act so as to attract the provisions of Section 120-B IPC. 16. In the present case, apart from the omnibus allegation that the petitioners acted together, there is no material demonstrating any prior agreement, meeting of minds or concerted plan amongst them to commit an illegal act. The mere fact that the petitioners were holding different positions in the Cooperative Society cannot, by itself, constitute criminal conspiracy. The material placed on record, particularly the inquiry report Crmp1250 of 2025 11 does not disclose any circumstance from which the existence of such an agreement can reasonably be inferred. 17. The Court is conscious that at the stage of considering a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, it is ordinarily not permissible to undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence. However, the present case stands on a different footing. The material relied upon by the prosecution itself contains the Additional Collector's inquiry report, which specifically records absence of dishonest intention on the part of the Committee Manager and attributes failure in discharge of official duties not only to the Society officials but also to various departmental authorities. The prosecution has not brought on record any material demonstrating that the petitioners dishonestly misappropriated the paddy, obtained wrongful gain, caused wrongful loss, or entered into an agreement to commit an illegal act. 18. The subsequent departmental proceedings also lend support to the aforesaid conclusion. The suspension order against petitioners No.1 to 3 was set aside by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Durg, and the departmental inquiry concerning petitioner No.4 did not find any irregularity, followed by his promotion. These circumstances, by themselves, may not determine the criminal liability; nevertheless, when considered along with the prosecution material and the Additional Collector's report, they reinforce the conclusion that the allegations do not Crmp1250 of 2025 12 disclose the essential criminal elements of Sections 409, 420 or 120-B IPC. 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the inherent jurisdiction exists to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. Where the uncontroverted material fails to disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged, compelling an accused to undergo a full-fledged criminal trial would serve no legitimate purpose. The present case, therefore, falls within the well-recognized category where the allegations and the material collected do not prima facie make out the offences alleged. 20. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations contained in FIR No.191/2022 dated 09.05.2022, the material collected during investigation and the consequential charge- sheet do not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to constitute offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B read with Section 34 IPC against the petitioners. Continuation of the criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. 21. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.191/2022 dated 09.05.2022 registered at Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara, for offences under Sections 420, 409, 120-B and 34 IPC, final report/charge- sheet No.208/2023 dated 30.09.2023, the order dated 22.11.2023 taking cognizance thereon, the order dated 19.02.2025 framing charges under Crmp1250 of 2025 13 Sections 120-B, 409 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara in Criminal Case No.1766/2023, and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed in sofar as the petitioners are concerned. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.08.24 15:25:52 +0530