1 CGHC010298432026 2026:CGHC:34053-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2058 of 2026 Gangadas Manikpuri S/o Vishramdas Manikpuri Aged About 49 Years Occupation, Society Manager, Sewa, Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, R/o Village Budhwara, Police Station Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of Home Mantralaya Atal Nagar Nawa, Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2 - The Superintendent of Police Kawardha District Kabirdham C.G. 3 - Station House Officer, Police Station Sahaspur Lohara District Kabirdham C.G. 4 - Branch Manager Namely Santosh Kumar Gandharva S/o Late Shri Bishesar Gandharva, Aged, About 57, Years Working As Branch Manager, Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Branch Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham C.G. ... Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Saumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate / State ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 05.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent Nos. 1 to 3. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharariya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the following prayers :- “In view of the above referred facts and grounds the applicant most humbly and respectfully begs to pray that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the First Information Reports bearing Crime No. 79/2026 under section 3(5), 316(5), 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita registered in Police Station Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham (C.G.), along with all consequential proceedings and investigations arising therefrom, against the Petitioner/Applicant.” 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner/applicant, Gangadas Manikpuri, was serving as the Society Manager and In-charge of various Paddy Procurement Centres under the Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham, during the Kharif Marketing Year 2025–26. The paddy procurement operations were carried out in accordance with the Paddy Procurement Policy, 2025–26 and a tripartite agreement executed on 15.11.2025 between the District Cooperative Bank Limited, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited (MARKFED), and the petitioner. In discharge of his duties, the petitioner was entrusted with the management of the Paddy Procurement Centres at Sahaspur Lohara, Basinjhori, and Biranpur Kala. 3 4. On 18.06.2026, a Joint Inspection Team comprising officials of the Food Department, Cooperative Department, and Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank conducted a physical verification of the stock available at the aforesaid procurement centres. During the inspection, the team allegedly found shortages of paddy stock and empty/old gunny bags at the centres under the petitioner's supervision. On the basis of the inspection report, it was alleged that the shortage had resulted in financial loss to the Government due to the alleged misappropriation of paddy and gunny bags. 5. Consequently, on the complaint lodged by Santosh Kumar Gandharva, Manager, District Cooperative Bank Limited, Rajnandgaon Branch, Sahaspur Lohara, three First Information Reports, namely Crime Nos. 79/2026, 80/2026, and 81/2026, were registered against the petitioner along with co-accused Baldau Dadsena and Bihari Ram Sahu. In Crime No. 79/2026, the petitioner has been accused of committing offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 316(5), and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on the allegation that, in furtherance of their common intention, the accused persons dishonestly misappropriated paddy and gunny bags entrusted to them, thereby causing wrongful loss to the Government and wrongful gain to themselves. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned First Information Report is wholly illegal, arbitrary and liable to be quashed as the allegations contained therein, even if taken at 4 their face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence punishable under Sections 3(5), 316(5) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The entire prosecution case rests solely upon the alleged shortage of paddy and empty/old gunny bags noticed during physical verification conducted by the Joint Inspection Team. Such shortage, by itself, does not establish dishonest misappropriation, criminal breach of trust or cheating. The petitioner was functioning as the Society Manager and Procurement Centre In-charge in accordance with the Paddy Procurement Policy, 2025–26 and the tripartite agreement executed with MARKFED and the District Cooperative Bank. The FIR does not attribute any specific overt act to the petitioner nor does it disclose any material to establish dishonest intention, wrongful gain or fraudulent inducement, which are the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. It is further submitted that the dispute, if any, is purely contractual and civil in nature, arising out of the performance of obligations under the Paddy Procurement Policy and the tripartite agreement governing procurement, storage and accounting of paddy stocks. The agreement itself provides a comprehensive mechanism for verification of stock, determination of shortages and recovery of any financial loss, if found. Therefore, any alleged deficiency in stock can, at best, give rise to civil liability or departmental proceedings and cannot be made the subject matter of criminal prosecution. The registration of the FIR on the basis of an alleged stock shortage amounts to 5 giving a criminal colour to a purely contractual dispute, which is impermissible in law. It is, therefore, submitted that the continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law and would result in serious prejudice to the petitioner. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the present petition and submitted that the allegations contained in the impugned First Information Report prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 316(5) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It was submitted that during the joint physical verification conducted by the officials of the Food Department, Cooperative Department and Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank, a substantial shortage of paddy and empty/old gunny bags was detected at the procurement centres under the charge of the petitioner, resulting in financial loss to the Government. The petitioner, being the Society Manager and Procurement Centre In-charge, was entrusted with the custody and management of the Government stock, and the allegations regarding misappropriation of the entrusted property require a thorough investigation. At this stage, the Court ought not to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Learned State counsel further submitted that the petitioner himself has asserted that the dispute arises out of the tripartite agreement and the 6 Paddy Procurement Policy, both of which contain a specific arbitration clause for resolution of disputes arising out of the contractual relationship between the parties. If the petitioner seeks adjudication of his contractual rights or disputes relating to accounting, stock verification or liability arising under the agreement, the appropriate course available to him is to invoke the arbitration mechanism contemplated under the agreement. Having an efficacious alternative remedy by way of arbitration, the petitioner cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court for adjudication of contractual disputes under the guise of seeking quashment of the FIR. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner seeks quashment of the impugned FIR primarily on the ground that the dispute is contractual in nature and that the allegations merely relate to shortage of paddy and gunny bags arising out of the performance of obligations under the Paddy Procurement Policy, 2025–26 and the tripartite agreement. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was functioning as the Society Manager and Procurement Centre In-charge and was entrusted with the custody and management of the paddy procured from the farmers. The inspection conducted by the Joint Inspection Team allegedly revealed shortage of paddy and empty/old gunny bags, on the basis of which the impugned FIR came to be registered. Whether such shortage occurred due to 7 mere negligence, accounting discrepancies or deliberate misappropriation is a matter which requires investigation and appreciation of evidence. At this stage, this Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of the factual disputes or evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence collected by the investigating agency. 10. It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is to be exercised sparingly, with great circumspection and only in those cases where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides or amount to an abuse of the process of law. 11. In the present case, the allegations contained in the impugned FIR, read as a whole, cannot be said to be so inherently improbable or absurd as to warrant interference at the threshold. The investigation is still in progress and this Court is not inclined to stifle the same by entering into disputed questions of fact, which can only be adjudicated after a full-fledged investigation and, if necessary, during trial. 12. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for exercise of the inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is made out. The petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the observations made 8 herein are confined to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case during investigation or at any subsequent stage of the criminal proceedings. It is further observed that dismissal of the present petition shall not preclude the petitioner from availing such contractual remedies, including arbitration, as may be available to him under the terms of the tripartite agreement, in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra