1 CGHC010306882026 2026:CGHC:35453-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2114 of 2026 Ushavati Yadav, wife of Rameshwar Yadav, Aged About 51 Years Resident of Village - Uparghincha, Post -Khutgaon, Tahsil - Faesabahar, District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station, Tapkara, District -Jashpur (C.G.) 2 - Hemprakash Bhardwaj, Food Inspector, Farsabahar, District Jashpur (C.G.) (Complainant) ... Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. Govt. Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Anusha Naik, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharariya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the following prayers :- “I. Allow this petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. filed by the petitioner. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 II. Quash the impugned FIR dated 21.09.2025 bearing Crime No. 73/2025 registered at Police Station, Tapkara, District-Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence U/s 318(4), 316(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3, 7 of Essential Commodities Act (as per bail order) against the petitioner. III. Quash the impugned charge sheet (Final Report) No. 03/2026 dated 31.01.2026 filed by Police Station, Tapkara before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kunkuri, District-Jashpur for the offence U/s 318(4), 316(5) of BNS and Section 3, 7 of Essential Commodities Act (Annexure P/1) against the petitioner. IV. Quash the impugned order dated 17.02.2026 for taking cognizance U/s 318(4), 316(5) of BNS and Section 3, 7 of Essential Commodities Act (Annexure P/2). V. Quash the entire criminal proceedings pending in Criminal Case No. 261/2026 before the learned JMFC, Kunkuri, District-Jashpur (C.G.) against the petitioner. VI. Grant any other relief, which may be deemed fit in given facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of petitioner.” 3. As per pleadings made in the petition, the brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner was working as Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Sajbahar, and the Fair Price Shop bearing I.D. No. 562007050 was allotted to the said Gram Panchayat for distribution of food grains/ration to the beneficiaries in accordance with the applicable government norms and guidelines. However, vide Resolution No.6 dated 09.03.2021, the office bearers of Gram Panchayat, Sajbahar authorized the Salesman, namely Vivek Kumar Gupta, son of Rajendra Gupta, 3 resident of Village Sajbahar, and handed over the entire charge of the said Fair Price Shop to him for its day-to-day operation and distribution of food grains/ration. Subsequently, vide order dated 06.03.2024, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Jashpur attached the services of the petitioner to Janpad Panchayat Office, Farsabahar, and the additional charge of Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Sajbahar was entrusted to one Shivmangal Sai, who took over charge on 09.03.2024. 4. On 21.09.2025, respondent No.2 submitted a written complaint before Police Station Tapkara alleging that the Fair Price Shop bearing I.D. No.562007050, allotted to Gram Panchayat, Sajbahar, was being mismanaged by the petitioner, co-accused Sonam Lakra, who was the elected Sarpanch, and Salesman Vivek Kumar Gupta, and that ration meant for distribution to the villagers had been misappropriated. It was alleged that a shortage of 365.02 quintals of rice, 1.04 quintals of sugar and 5.02 quintals of salt was found for the period from 01.04.2024 to 31.03.2025. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR bearing Crime No.73/2025 was registered at Police Station Tapkara, District Jashpur, for offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner and the co- accused persons. The petitioner thereafter preferred an application for grant of anticipatory bail bearing M.Cr.C.(A) No.1587/2025, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 4 15.10.2025. The petitioner had also earlier preferred Cr.M.P. No.3863/2025 before this Hon’ble Court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 08.01.2026 on the ground that the investigation was then pending and the matter could not be examined at that stage. 5. Subsequently, upon completion of investigation, the Police Station Tapkara filed charge-sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kunkuri on 31.01.2026, and vide order dated 17.02.2026, the learned JMFC, Kunkuri took cognizance of the alleged offences under Sections 318(4) and 316(5) of the BNS and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the registration of the FIR, filing of the charge-sheet and consequential proceedings, the petitioner has preferred the present petition seeking appropriate relief from this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR, charge-sheet/final report dated 31.01.2026 and cognizance order dated 17.02.2026 are unsustainable in law, as the alleged shortage relates to the period from 01.04.2024 to 31.03.2025, whereas the petitioner had already been relieved from Gram Panchayat, Sajbahar and her services were attached to the Office of Janpad Panchayat, Farsabahar vide order dated 06.03.2024, and the charge of Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Sajbahar had been taken over by Shivmangal Sai on 09.03.2024. He further submits that the Fair Price Shop was entrusted to 5 Salesman Vivek Kumar Gupta vide Resolution No.6 dated 09.03.2021 and the entire responsibility for running the shop and distribution of food grains to the beneficiaries was entrusted to the said Salesman. Therefore, the petitioner had neither possession nor control over the Fair Price Shop during the period in which the alleged shortage is stated to have occurred. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged discrepancy in stock was also attributable to technical and internet-related problems in the E- POS machine, on account of which ration was, at times, distributed manually after making entries in the relevant register, and the said issue had already been brought to the notice of the competent authorities by the Union of Sarpanch. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that with regard to the alleged shortage/misappropriation of food grains, proceedings bearing Case No.202504032100013 are already pending before the learned S.D.O. (Revenue), Farsabahar, in which notice was issued to the petitioner on 08.10.2025, and therefore, initiation of the present criminal prosecution on the very same allegations, without any specific material connecting the petitioner with the alleged misappropriation, amounts to abuse of the process of law. He submits that there is absolutely no material demonstrating that the petitioner ever participated in, facilitated or derived any benefit from the alleged misappropriation of food grains. The prosecution has failed to establish any specific overt act or dishonest intention attributable to the petitioner, and the 6 essential ingredients of Sections 318(4) and 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act are not made out against him. In these circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, despite his having been relieved from the concerned Gram Panchayat before the commencement of the alleged period of shortage, would amount to abuse of the process of law; hence, the impugned FIR, charge-sheet and consequential cognizance proceedings deserve to be quashed. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the petition and submitted that the FIR and the material collected during investigation prima facie disclose the commission of the alleged offences against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner, being the Panchayat Secretary, was connected with the affairs of the Gram Panchayat and the Fair Price Shop, and his exact role in the alleged shortage is a matter requiring appreciation of evidence. The explanation regarding the E-POS machine, manual distribution and technical difficulties is a matter of defence which cannot be examined in detail in the present proceedings. He further submitted that the pendency of proceedings before the S.D.O. (Revenue) does not bar criminal prosecution, particularly when the investigation has been completed, charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken by the learned Trial Court. The disputed questions regarding the petitioner’s role and responsibility are required to be determined during trial. 7 Accordingly, it is submitted that no ground for interference is made out and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard rival submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR, charge-sheet as well as order taking cognizance. 10. The scope of interference under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is well settled. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court illustratively enumerated the categories of cases wherein the extraordinary power to quash criminal proceedings may be exercised. The Court simultaneously cautioned that such power is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in the rarest of rare cases. The present case does not fall within any of the categories formulated in Bhajan Lal (supra) warranting interference. 11. Likewise, in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that while exercising jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings, the High Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or evaluate the correctness of the allegations. If the allegations in the First Information Report, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court should ordinarily refrain from stalling the prosecution. The Court further held that disputed questions of fact and the defence of the accused are matters to be considered during trial and not at the stage of quashing. 8 12. Very recently, 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. The Court reaffirmed the test laid down in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor and observed that criminal proceedings can be quashed at the threshold only when the material relied upon by the accused is of sterling and impeccable quality, completely demolishes the prosecution case, remains incapable of being refuted by the prosecution, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. Unless all these parameters are cumulatively satisfied, the High Court ought not to interfere in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, leaving the parties to establish their respective cases before the trial Court in accordance with law. 13. In the present case, the prosecution material prima facie discloses the alleged shortage of food grains in the Fair Price Shop and the involvement of the petitioner is a matter which requires appreciation of the evidence. The contention of the petitioner that he had already been transferred/attached to Janpad Panchayat, Farsabahar before the relevant period, that the charge had been handed over to another Panchayat Secretary, and that the Fair 9 Price Shop was being operated by the authorized Salesman, are matters of defence which cannot be conclusively adjudicated in the present proceedings. Likewise, the explanation regarding technical difficulties in the E-POS machine and manual distribution of ration requires examination of the relevant records and evidence. The pendency of proceedings before the S.D.O. (Revenue) also does not, by itself, bar criminal prosecution if the allegations prima facie disclose commission of criminal offences. Since investigation has already been completed, charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken by the learned Trial Court, this Court would not be justified in conducting a detailed appreciation of disputed facts or undertaking a mini-trial in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The petitioner shall have full opportunity to establish his defence before the learned Trial Court. 14. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. The learned Trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law and to consider the case on its own merits, without being influenced by any observation made in the present order. 15. It is made clear that the observations herein are confined only to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not prejudice either party during the trial. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all factual and legal grounds available to him before the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra