1 2026:CGHC:2369-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 145 of 2026 Naved Mirza S/o Maksud Mirza Aged About 45 Years R/o Behind Madarsa Faizulraza, Talapara, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Rajnandgaon Kotwali, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2. Sudesh Ku. Sahu Assistant Director, Fisheries, Rajnandgaon, Rajnandgaon Kotwali, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3. Geetanjali Gajbhiye Assistant Director, Fisheries, Dhamtari, Rudri, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 4. Sumit Kumar Das S/o Shri Subhash Chandra Das Aged About 45 Years R/o Pathri, Fingeshwar, Rajim, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shahid Siddiqui and Ms. Vedagni Jangde, Advocates. For Respondent/State : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Deputy Advocate General. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.01.15 17:16:34 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Shahid Siddiqui and Ms. Vedagni Jangde, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set-aside the impugned charge-sheet No. 366 of 2025 dated 17.09.2025 (Annexure P/1) in Crime No. 403 of 2024, order taking cognizance in order-sheet dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure P/2) and the entire Criminal Case No. RCC/8353/2025 pending before CJM, Rajanandgaon arising out of Crime No. 403 of 2024 for the alleged offences under Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, 1860 against the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the proprietor and Director of M/s Star Suppliers, a firm engaged in the business of installation of cages for pisciculture since 2016. Over the years, the petitioner has executed government contracts honestly, 3 diligently, and strictly in accordance with law, maintaining a spotless record with no prior allegations or criminal antecedents. The petitioner has also earned considerable goodwill in the field of aquaculture infrastructure. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner’s role was strictly limited to the installation of cages as per the work orders issued by the Assistant Director, Fisheries, Rajnandgaon. The petitioner was neither entrusted with nor responsible for pisciculture activities such as breeding, rearing, feeding, or sale of fish. This fact was well-known to all concerned departmental authorities and is not disputed by the prosecution. The installation of seventy-two cages was carried out pursuant to lawful departmental orders in 2021–22. Initially, the cages were installed at Pipariya Irrigation Reservoir; however, due to objections raised by local residents on religious grounds, the department itself directed that the cages be shifted to Nawagaon Irrigation Reservoir. The shifting was undertaken only after departmental approval and internal correspondence. At no point did the petitioner act independently or beyond the scope of the work order. 5. It is further contended that the petitioner submitted quotations strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the National Fisheries Development Board (NFDB), which govern cage installation projects under the Fisheries Department. Payments were released by the Assistant Director, Fisheries, only after due verification, inspection, and satisfaction of the departmental authorities. The petitioner received 4 payment only for the work actually executed and duly deposited GST, TDS, and other statutory taxes. The department’s own claim of GST on the bills demonstrates official acknowledgment, acceptance, and validation of the work. There is no allegation or evidence of excess payment, forged bills, or misappropriation of funds by the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel further submits that a preliminary departmental inquiry conducted by the Deputy Director, Fisheries, and the subsequent investigation report placed before the Director, Fisheries, Chhattisgarh, found no discrepancies attributable to the petitioner. Despite this, an FIR was lodged on 04.07.2024, after an unexplained delay of nearly one and a half years from the alleged transactions, raising serious doubts about the genuineness of the allegations. The FIR alleges offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC, without specifying any overt act, dishonest intention, or fraudulent conduct on the part of the petitioner. There is no material showing entrustment of property to the petitioner (Section 409 IPC), no dishonest inducement or deception (Section 420 IPC), and no creation or use of forged documents (Sections 467, 468, and 471 IPC). The allegation of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC is vague, bald, and unsupported by cogent evidence. 7. Learned counsel further submits that, even assuming the prosecution case at its face value, the allegations at most point to procedural or administrative lapses in following storage or purchase rules, which fall within the responsibility of government officials, not a 5 private contractor executing assigned work under valid orders. It is noted that co-accused Mrs. Geetanjali Gajbhiye, the then Assistant Director, also challenged criminal proceedings through CRMP No. 3386 of 2025, which was ultimately withdrawn after submissions. The petitioner has also been granted bail in MCRCA No. 397 of 2025, indicating that the allegations are not of such gravity as to warrant continued prosecution without strong prima facie material. Learned counsel submits that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounts to an abuse of the process of law, as the petitioner is being implicated solely on conjecture and assumptions, without any direct or substantive evidence. The proceedings are causing serious prejudice to the petitioner’s reputation, business, and livelihood. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the investigation was conducted in accordance with law, and upon completion, the final report/charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial Court, which has taken cognizance and is presently conducting the trial. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 10. The legal position regarding quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled. The jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR, or charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. Courts ordinarily do not interfere with investigations of cognizable offences. However, where allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not 6 prima facie constitute an offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or charge-sheet may be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers of the Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC). 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) 1 SCC 335] laid down that FIRs or complaints can be quashed if allegations, even if assumed true, do not prima facie constitute an offence, are malicious or vexatious, or constitute an abuse of the process of law. Further, in Girish Babu v. State of Kerala [(1990) 4 SCC 432], the Court held that mere procedural or administrative lapses cannot be the basis for criminal prosecution, and such proceedings, if initiated, would amount to harassment of the accused. 12. From the FIR, charge-sheet, and cognizance order, it is evident that an application was submitted by Shri Sudesh Kumar Sahu, Assistant Director, Fisheries, Rajnandgaon, on 04.07.2024, requesting FIR registration against Smt. Geetanjali Gajbhiye and certain firms, including M/s Star Suppliers. The application alleged that while performing departmental work related to cage culture, administrative approvals were obtained using forged beneficiary documents, resulting in misappropriation of funds. The Inquiry Officer found prima facie irregularities including forged signatures, misuse of government funds, and serious negligence on the part of the departmental official. The FIR was registered based on this certified inquiry report and directions of the 7 Collector, Rajnandgaon. 13. In view of the above, the present petition does not fall within any exceptional category warranting interference under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC). The petitioner’s contentions, even if taken at face value, do not demonstrate that the criminal proceedings are wholly without basis. 14. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan