1 CGHC010289362026 2026:CGHC:34426-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2074 of 2026 1 - Ankit Tiwari S/o Virendra Kumar Tiwari Aged About 34 Years R/o Civil Line, Baloda Bazar, Behind 29 Quarters, Baloda Bazar, Distt. Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, Bacheli, District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh. 2 - Deepak Kumar Thakur S/o Sundar Singh Thakur R/o Present Address Surbhi Colony Dhantewada, Distt. Dantewada, Chhattisgarh Permanent Address Village Kushrupali, Tehsil Chura, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Sr. Advocate along with Shri Waquar Naiyar, Advocate. For State : Shri Ashish Shukla, Addl. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 06.08.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition and quash the F.I.R. Dated 26.11.2025 & INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.08.06 15:51:15 +0530 2 Charge-sheet Dated 15.01.2026 in Crime No.49/2025 for the offence under section 316(5), 336(3), 318, 338, 340, & 61 read with section 3(5) of BNS, 2023 at Police Station Bacheli, Dhantewada and further to quash the cognizance order Dated Dated 21.01.2026 passed by the 1st Class Judicial Magistrate, Bacheli, South Bastar Chhattisgarh in Criminal Case No.05/2026, so far as it relates to the petitioner herein, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 2 As per the prosecution case, on 25.11.2025 a surprise inspection was conducted at the English Composite Liquor Shop, Bacheli. During the inspection, physical cash amounting to 92,09,370/- was found, and it ₹ was further alleged that a sum of 60,38,404/- had not been deposited ₹ into the designated bank account. On the basis of the inspection, the prosecution alleged that a total amount of 1,52,47,774/- had been ₹ misappropriated by Kosuri Yadav, Deepak Chandrasekhar, Rakesh Uike, Devendra Kumar Paikara, and Ajay Kumar Sharma and other co- accused persons. It was further alleged that co-accused Ajay Kumar Sharma collected money through UPI and unlawfully removed liquor bottles from the shop. Accordingly, FIR dated 26.11.2025 was registered as Crime No. 49/2025 at Police Station Bacheli, District Dantewada, for offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 336(3), 318, 338, 340 and 61 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. After investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet on 15.01.2026 and trial Court took cognizance of the matter. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is merely an employee of Rakshak Securitas Pvt. Ltd., whose role is governed by the Scope and Specification of Work under Tender No.CSMCL/Tender/2024-25/2 dated 19.02.2024. The said tender does 3 not cast any responsibility upon the petitioner for collection, custody, accounting, auditing, or deposit of cash received from the liquor shop. The responsibility for daily collection and deposit of cash exclusively was vested with Hitachi Cash Management, the authorised cash collection agency. Consequently, no statutory, contractual, or administrative duty regarding handling of cash was assigned to the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as District Co-ordinator only on 09.09.2025. His responsibilities were supervisory and administrative in nature and did not involve financial management or operation of the liquor shop. The prosecution has failed to produce any material demonstrating that the petitioner received any part of the alleged embezzled amount, participated in the alleged conspiracy, or derived any wrongful gain. The allegations against the petitioner are vague, omnibus, and based solely on his designation. Even if the entire charge-sheet material is accepted at its face value, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out against the petitioner. His prosecution is, therefore, an abuse of the process of law and continuation of the criminal proceedings would result in grave miscarriage of justice. He would submit that tomorrow i.e. 07.08.2026 the case is fixed before the trial court. Therefore, FIR charge-sheet and consensual proceeding against the petitioner be quashed. 4 We have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5 The principal contention of the petitioner is that he is merely an employee of Rakshak Securitas Pvt. Ltd. and thereafter appointed as District Co-ordinator on 09.09.2025. His responsibility was supervisory 4 and administrative in nature and did not involve financial management or operation of the liquor shop. It was the further contention of the petitioner that the responsibility for collection and deposit of cash was entrusted to the authorised cash management agency and, therefore, no offence is made out against the petitioner. 6 From perusal of record, it is evident that after submission of the charge-sheet, the case is pending before the trial Court at the stage of consideration of charge. It is also apparent that since 02.01.2026 the accused persons have been seeking adjournments and the arguments on the question of framing charge have not been addressed before the trial Court. All the submissions raised by the petitioner are all matters which can appropriately be urged before the trial Court while seeking discharge under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The trial Court is competent to examine the charge- sheet and accompanying material to determine whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against the petitioner or not. Instead of availing the statutory remedy of seeking discharge and permitting the trial Court to consider the question of framing of charge, the petitioner has directly invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Such a prayer, particularly when the proceedings are pending at the stage of consideration of charge and the accused have been taking time for arguments since 02.01.2026, cannot be granted. The petition appears to have been filed by bypassing the statutory procedure and has the effect of delaying the proceedings pending before the trial Court. 7 In the opinion of this Court, the grounds urged in the present petition are all matters to be considered by the trial Court at the stage of 5 discharge/framing of charge. No exceptional circumstance has been demonstrated warranting interference in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court at this stage. 8 Accordingly, the petition is dismissed on this ground alone. It is, however, observed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all such contentions as are available to him before the trial Court by filing an appropriate application for discharge, which shall be considered on its own merits, in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observation made in this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder