1 CGHC010322642026 2026:CGHC:37001-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2179 of 2026 Awadhesh Singh Gautam S/o Late Shri Ranjit Singh Gautam Aged About 56 Years Proprietor of M/s Awadhesh Singh Gautam A Firm Registered With The Public Works Department Chhatisgarh, As A Class A Contractor Bearing Unique Indemnification Number C G.E R 17944, Having Its Place of Business At Village Nakulnar, Police Station Kuakonda, District Sourth Bastar Bantewada, C. G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kirandul District Dantewada, C.G. 2 - Shri Rakesh Kumar Nagesh Assistant Engineer (In Charge) Chhattisgarh Rural Road, Development Agency District Sourth Bastar Dantewada C.G. ... Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Bharat Kumar Gulbani and Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocates For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. Advocate General ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 19.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate assisted by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Mr. Bharat Kumar Gulbani and Mr. Arpan Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sumit Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, 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. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed by the petitioner. II. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the F.I.R. bearing No. 11/2025, registered 13.02.2025 at Police StationKirandul, District Dantewada, (C.G.)lodged on the instance of respondent No.2 namely Rakesh Kumar Nagesh, against the petitioner for the offencepunishableunder section 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, so far as present petitioner is concerned. III. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash entire charge sheet/final report bearing No. 87/2025, dated 30.12.2025, filed on 04.06.2026before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bacheli, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.)in the matter of (State of Chhattisgarh V/s. Awadhesh Singh Gautam &Other) for the offences punishable under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 & 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, so far as present petitioner is concerned. IV. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 04.06.2026 3 (Annexure P/2), passed in Criminal Case No. 863/2026 and its consequential proceedings, in the matter of "State of Chhattisgarh V/s. Awadhesh Singh Gautam & Other", whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bacheli, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) has taken cognizance of the impugned Chargesheet and registered the impugned criminal proceeding as Criminal Case no. 863/2026, so far as present petitioner is concerned. V. And to kindly grant any other relief to the petitioners as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case, may also granted to the petitioner.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Class-A contractor registered with the Public Works Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, and was awarded two road construction works in District South Bastar Dantewada pursuant to Administrative Sanction dated 25.08.2022 and tender proceedings, under Agreements No. 05 and 06 dated 03.01.2023. The works were executed under the supervision and measurement of departmental engineers, and running bills were prepared and paid on the basis of entries made in the departmental Measurement Books. The agreements contained provisions for technical examination, recovery in case of excess payment or defective work, performance guarantee, defect liability and arbitration. Subsequently, on a complaint, an enquiry committee constituted by the Collector submitted a report dated 09.04.2024 alleging that certain works were not found at site and 4 recommended recovery of 2,01,06,117/- from the petitioner. ₹ However, the petitioner was neither issued notice nor afforded an opportunity of hearing. The consequential recovery proceedings were challenged by the petitioner before this Court in WP(C) No. 436 of 2025, and by order dated 05.03.2025, this Court quashed the demand notice, holding the proceedings to be contrary to the principles of natural justice, while reserving liberty to the authorities to proceed afresh in accordance with law. 4. Thereafter, a second and detailed technical enquiry was conducted by a committee of seven officers, including physical verification of the roads, excavation of test pits, measurement of road layers, laboratory testing of bitumen content, verification of culverts, bridges and retaining/toe walls, and examination of geo- tagged photographs. The second enquiry found the works to have been executed satisfactorily and specifically found that the culverts and other structures alleged to be missing had in fact been constructed. The Superintending Engineer's subsequent report dated 05.05.2025 attributed certain deficiencies to the departmental engineers and characterized them as negligence/irregularity, without quantifying any recoverable amount from the petitioner. The State Forensic Science Laboratory, while examining questioned signatures in the Measurement Books, found the questioned signatures to be genuine and expressed no opinion supporting any forgery. Departmental proceedings initiated against the co-accused public 5 servants were subsequently closed by the State Government by order dated 28.05.2026. Despite the aforesaid material, the police filed Charge Sheet No. 87/2025 against the petitioner and five others for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 and 120-B of the IPC, principally relying upon the superseded enquiry report dated 09.04.2024. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bacheli, by order dated 04.06.2026, took cognizance of the alleged offences and registered Criminal Case No. 863 of 2026. Charges have not yet been framed and the matter was fixed for pre-charge arguments. 5. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the entire prosecution case is founded upon the initial enquiry report dated 09.04.2024, which was subsequently rendered doubtful by the detailed technical re- enquiry conducted by a committee of seven departmental officers. It is submitted that the second enquiry involved physical verification of the roads, excavation of test pits, measurement of various road layers, laboratory testing of bitumen, verification of culverts and retaining/toe walls, and geo-tagged photographs, and the committee found the works to have been executed satisfactorily. Learned counsel further submits that the report dated 05.05.2025 attributed the alleged deficiencies to negligence and irregularities on the part of departmental engineers and did not quantify any amount recoverable from the petitioner. It is argued that the State Forensic Science Laboratory, upon 6 examination of the questioned signatures, found the signatures to be genuine and did not support the allegation of forgery. It is further submitted that the departmental proceedings against the co-accused public servants, who were alleged to have conspired with the petitioner, were ultimately closed by the State Government by order dated 28.05.2026. He further argued that despite these materials forming part of the investigation, the police charge-sheet proceeds almost exclusively on the superseded report dated 09.04.2024 and the alleged recovery figure of ₹2,01,06,117/-. According to learned counsel, the petitioner was neither the author nor custodian of the Measurement Books and no forged document has been attributed to or recovered from him. 6. Mr. Paranjpe further submits that, even if the allegations contained in the FIR and charge-sheet are taken at their face value, the essential ingredients of Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 and 120-B of the IPC are not made out against the petitioner. The dispute essentially arises out of execution and measurement of government road works and the agreements themselves contain comprehensive mechanisms for technical examination, recovery, defect liability and other contractual remedies. It is contended that the earlier recovery proceedings were already quashed by this Court on account of violation of the principles of natural justice, and no fresh recovery order has thereafter been passed against the petitioner. Learned counsel places reliance upon Pradeep 7 Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947, and submits that where the accused relies upon material of sterling and impeccable quality which has not been effectively refuted and which demolishes the factual foundation of the prosecution, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. It is therefore prayed that the FIR, charge-sheet dated 04.06.2026 and consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No. 863 of 2026 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bacheli, be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel, opposing the petition, submits that the police, after conducting a detailed investigation, have collected sufficient material disclosing a prima facie case against the petitioner and the co-accused for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 and 120-B of the IPC. It is submitted that the allegations relate to execution, measurement and certification of government road works and the alleged manipulation of official records, resulting in wrongful payment and corresponding loss to the Government. The disputed issues concerning the correctness of the two enquiry reports, the execution and quality of the works, the Measurement Books, and the respective roles of the petitioner and the departmental officials are matters requiring appreciation of evidence during trial. Learned State counsel further submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the learned 8 Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences. The material relied upon by the petitioner cannot be conclusively appreciated or weighed in proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, particularly when the prosecution has cited witnesses and relied upon documentary evidence in support of its case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner has an adequate opportunity to raise all his contentions before the learned Trial Court and that no exceptional ground for quashing the criminal proceedings is made out. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the FIR, charge-sheet, documents collected during investigation and the material placed on record. 9. The petitioner seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings on the ground that the prosecution is founded upon the first enquiry report dated 09.04.2024, which was subsequently contradicted by the detailed technical re-enquiry and other material collected during investigation. 10. It is settled that the power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is extraordinary and is required to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, the Supreme Court has laid down the well-known categories in which interference may be justified, while cautioning that the High Court 9 should not ordinarily undertake an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations at the stage of quashing. The same principle has been reiterated in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 6 SCC 1, wherein the Supreme Court emphasized that, ordinarily, investigation/ prosecution should not be scuttled at the threshold where the allegations disclose a cognizable offence. 11. In the present case, the prosecution alleges that the petitioner, in conspiracy with the co-accused departmental officials, participated in fraudulent preparation/use of official records relating to the execution and measurement of government road works, resulting in wrongful payment and loss to the Government. The charge-sheet contains allegations referable to Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 and 120-B of the IPC and relies upon documentary material as well as the statements of twenty-one witnesses. At this stage, it would not be appropriate for this Court to undertake a detailed comparative examination of the first enquiry report, the subsequent technical enquiry report, the Measurement Books, the departmental proceedings, the forensic report and other documents for the purpose of determining which version is ultimately correct. The Supreme Court has consistently held that disputed questions of fact and the evidentiary value of the material relied upon by the prosecution are ordinarily matters for trial. 10 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the subsequent technical enquiry, the report dated 05.05.2025, the FSL report and the closure of departmental proceedings against the co-accused public servants. These materials may certainly constitute important defence material. However, the fact that another departmental enquiry reached a different conclusion from the earlier enquiry does not, by itself, render the criminal prosecution legally unsustainable. The correctness, evidentiary value and effect of the respective reports are matters which would require examination in the light of the evidence led before the Trial Court. Similarly, the closure of departmental proceedings against the co-accused cannot automatically result in the exoneration of the petitioner in the criminal case, particularly when the criminal prosecution is based upon its own set of allegations and evidence. 13. As regards the forensic report, it is true that the FSL report, as stated by the petitioner, does not support the allegation of forgery in respect of the signatures examined and has expressed no opinion regarding authorship of certain writings. Nevertheless, the charge-sheet is not founded solely upon the alleged forged signatures. The prosecution has relied upon the entire documentary record, the Measurement Books, the manner of execution and certification of the works, the alleged conspiracy and the statements of witnesses. Therefore, the evidentiary effect of the forensic report cannot be determined in isolation at this 11 stage so as to conclude that the entire prosecution case stands demolished. 14. We are also unable to accept the contention that the contractual mechanism contained in the agreements, providing for technical examination, recovery, defect liability and other remedies, by itself bars criminal prosecution. The existence of contractual or departmental remedies does not constitute an absolute bar where the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of cognizable criminal offences involving alleged fraud, forgery, criminal breach of trust or conspiracy. Whether the ingredients of the alleged offences are ultimately established is a matter to be determined on the basis of evidence. 15. The reliance placed upon Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (supra), also does not assist the petitioner at this stage. The principles governing reliance upon unimpeachable material in proceedings for quashing are well settled; however, such jurisdiction can be exercised where the material relied upon is of sterling and impeccable quality and completely demolishes the prosecution case. In the present matter, the material relied upon by the petitioner, particularly the competing technical reports and departmental conclusions, cannot be treated as conclusively determinative of the criminal liability without examination of the underlying evidence. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the inherent jurisdiction is not to be exercised for conducting a mini-trial. 12 16. It is also relevant that the learned Magistrate has already taken cognizance on 04.06.2026 upon consideration of the charge- sheet and accompanying documents. Charges, however, have not yet been framed. The petitioner shall have full opportunity at the stage of consideration of charge and during trial to demonstrate, on the basis of the prosecution material and the documents relied upon by him, that the ingredients of the alleged offences are not established. At this stage, however, this Court cannot substitute its appreciation of disputed material for that of the competent Trial Court. 17. Thus, upon consideration of the allegations contained in the FIR and charge-sheet as a whole, we are of the opinion that it cannot be held that the prosecution case is inherently absurd, inherently improbable or that, even if the allegations are accepted in their entirety, no offence whatsoever is disclosed. The case therefore does not fall within the exceptional categories warranting interference under Section 528 of the BNSS. The principles in Bhajan Lal (supra) require the power of quashing to be exercised sparingly and only where interference is clearly warranted. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no sufficient ground to quash the FIR, Charge Sheet No. 87/2025 and the consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No. 863 of 2026 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bacheli. 19. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein are confined to the 13 adjudication of the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS and shall not prejudice the petitioner at the stage of consideration of charge or during trial. The learned Trial Court shall consider the case independently, on the basis of the material and evidence placed before it and strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra