1 CGHC010272662026 2026:CGHC:36135-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1956 of 2026 Girish Kumar Warey S/o Tekram Warey Aged About 35 Years Posted As Assistant Grade- I I At Office Of District Programme Officer, Woman And Child Welfare Department, District- Jashpur, C.G. , R/o Purani Toli, Ward No. 9, Jashpur Nagar, District- Jashpur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station - E.O.W. / A.C.B., Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 2 - Yogesh Kumar Sandilya Working As Peon At Intergated Child Development Project Office, Lodam, District- Jashpur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankush Borkar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ankush Borkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sumit Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General for MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.08.14 16:59:38 +0530 2 respondent No.1/ State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the entire criminal proceedings Including charges, pending before the learned Special Judge under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Jashpur, District - Jaspur (C.G.) in Anti Corruption Case No. 01/2026, including charges dated 01.07.2026 framed by the learned Special Judge under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Jashpur, District - Jaspur (C.G.) in Anti Corruption Case No. 01/2026 against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 7 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Final Report No. 16/2026 dated 20.02.2026 filed before the learned Special Judge under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Jashpur, District - Jaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 7 of The Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (Amendment Act 2018) and First Information Report bearing Crime No. 02/2026 dated 10.01.2026 registered at Police Station EOW/ACB, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 7 of The Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (Amendment Act 2018), in the interest of justice.” 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.12.2025, complainant Yogesh Kumar Sandilya, working as a Peon in the Integrated Child Development Project Office, Dokda, submitted a written complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, 3 Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ambikapur, alleging that accused Girish Kumar Warey, Assistant Grade-II, had demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.80,000/- for processing and securing his transfer to the Integrated Child Development Project Office, Lodam, District Jashpur. It was alleged that after the complainant’s transfer was effected, the accused again demanded the said amount and, when the complainant expressed his inability to pay, retained his Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG-14-MN-6259 and stated that the vehicle would be returned only upon payment of the demanded amount. The complainant, being unwilling to pay the bribe, approached the ACB and expressed his willingness to have the accused caught red-handed. Upon verification of the complaint, the accused allegedly reiterated his demand and agreed to accept the illegal gratification. Accordingly, a trap was organized on 08.01.2026, during which the accused was allegedly caught red-handed while accepting Rs.40,000/-, being the first instalment of the demanded bribe of Rs.80,000/-, from the complainant in the presence of independent witnesses. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the accused and seized, and the blue-coloured jeans worn by him, in which the bribe amount had been kept, was also seized. The complainant’s motorcycle, which was allegedly retained by the accused at his residence, was likewise seized as material evidence. After completion of the necessary formalities, the accused was arrested on 08.01.2026 at 20:30 hours. 4 Thereafter, on 10.01.2026, FIR bearing Crime No.02/2026 was registered at Police Station EOW/ACB, Raipur, District Raipur, for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and upon completion of investigation, Final Report No.16/2026 dated 20.02.2026 was filed before the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Jashpur, District Jashpur. The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 01.07.2026, framed charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Hence, the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred seeking appropriate relief. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and is innocent, having committed no offence as alleged. It is contended that the prosecution material does not disclose any credible or legally admissible evidence establishing the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Learned counsel submits that the complainant’s transfer had already been effected in June 2025 pursuant to the applicable Government Transfer Policy, 2025 and by the competent authority, whereas the alleged demand and trap took place in January 2026, nearly seven months thereafter, and the petitioner had neither any authority nor any official role in the transfer process. It is further submitted that 5 the official records, including the order dated 01.07.2025 issued by the competent Project Officer, demonstrate that the transfer, relieving and assumption of charge were carried out in the ordinary course of official administration and there is no material to establish that the petitioner exercised any influence or abused his official position in relation to the transfer. Learned counsel further submits that the complaint is belated and the trap proceedings suffer from material irregularities and contradictions, particularly with regard to the alleged demand, sequence of events and amount of gratification, and the prosecution has failed to place any credible material connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. It is argued that even if the allegations contained in the FIR and final report are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, the same do not prima facie constitute an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is thus submitted that the continuation of the criminal proceedings, despite absence of the foundational ingredients of the alleged offence, would amount to an abuse of the process of law, particularly when the complaint is alleged to have been lodged with an ulterior motive after the complainant had already obtained his transfer. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the present case falls within the parameters of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the proceedings against the petitioner deserve to be quashed. 6 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposes the petition and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are supported by the material collected during investigation. It is contended that the complainant had specifically alleged a demand of Rs.80,000/- as illegal gratification in connection with his transfer and, upon verification, the petitioner allegedly reiterated the demand and agreed to accept the bribe amount. Learned State counsel submits that pursuant to the said demand, a trap was duly organized on 08.01.2026, during which the petitioner was allegedly caught red-handed while accepting Rs.40,000/- as the first instalment of the demanded gratification in the presence of independent witnesses. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the petitioner and his wearing apparel, as well as the complainant’s motorcycle allegedly retained by him, were seized during the trap proceedings. It is further submitted that the investigation has been completed and the final report has been filed along with the material collected during investigation, on the basis of which the learned Trial Court has framed charge against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Learned State counsel submits that the disputed questions relating to the credibility of the complainant, demand and acceptance of gratification, alleged contradictions in the prosecution evidence and the circumstances of the trap are matters to be tested during trial and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik 7 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It is therefore contended that the prosecution has disclosed a prima facie case against the petitioner and there are no exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, dismissal of the petition is prayed for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 7. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if 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, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.). 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Supreme Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of 8 the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 9. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has authoritatively settled the scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The Apex Court has held that the power to quash criminal proceedings is required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the rarest of rare cases. It has been categorically observed that while considering a prayer for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR, nor can it appreciate the evidence or conduct a mini trial. The Court is only required to examine whether the allegations, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court further emphasized that criminal proceedings 9 ought not to be scuttled at the threshold, that investigation into cognizable offences should ordinarily be permitted to proceed unhindered, and that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with great caution and self- restraint, save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in manifest miscarriage of justice. 10. 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. 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. 11. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, we are of the considered view that the present case does not fall within the exceptional category warranting interference under Section 528 of the BNSS. The prosecution case, as reflected from the complaint, verification proceedings and the material collected during investigation, specifically alleges demand of illegal gratification of Rs.80,000/- by the petitioner from the complainant in connection with his transfer. It is the further case of the prosecution that, upon 10 verification, the petitioner reiterated the demand and thereafter, during the trap proceedings conducted on 08.01.2026, was apprehended while allegedly accepting Rs.40,000/-, stated to be the first instalment of the demanded amount, from the complainant in the presence of independent witnesses. The prosecution further relies upon the recovery of the tainted currency notes and seizure of the wearing apparel of the petitioner, as well as the complainant’s motorcycle which was allegedly retained by him. 12. The principal submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, namely, that the transfer had already been effected, that the petitioner had no authority in the transfer process, that there was no occasion for him to demand any gratification and that the complaint and trap proceedings suffer from contradictions, are essentially matters of defence and disputed questions of fact. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake a detailed examination of the circumstances in which the alleged demand was made, the credibility of the complainant or the evidentiary value of the recovery. The defence of the petitioner may be appropriately considered by the learned Trial Court after the parties lead their evidence. 13. The contention that the transfer had already been effected and that the petitioner was not the competent authority to pass the transfer order, by itself, cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings at this stage. Whether the alleged demand was 11 connected with the discharge of any official function, whether the petitioner exercised any influence in relation to the transfer and whether the prosecution is able to establish the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, are matters which would require consideration on the basis of evidence during trial. 14. We also find that the investigation has been completed and final report has been filed, and the learned Trial Court has already framed charge against the petitioner. The prosecution has placed reliance upon the complaint, verification proceedings, trap proceedings, recovery of the alleged tainted amount and other seizure material. Thus, it cannot be said, at this stage, that the allegations are so absurd, inherently improbable or devoid of substance that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The correctness, reliability and ultimate admissibility or evidentiary value of such material are matters to be determined by the learned Trial Court. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the present petition involves disputed questions of fact and appreciation of evidence, which cannot be undertaken in exercise of the limited jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that, even if the prosecution allegations are taken at their face value, no offence is disclosed or that the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides so as to warrant interference at the threshold. 12 16. Consequently, the petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet