1 CGHC010238582021 2026:CGHC:38959 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3776 of 2021 1. Mangal Das Sonwani S/o Ramnath Sonwani, Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No.5 Sitapar, Police Station Simga, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.). 2. Kishwar Baghel S/o Shambhulal Baghel, Aged About 49 Years R/o Ward No.7, Dhruw Para, Police Station Simga, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.). 3. Rajeev Dadsena, S/o Laxmi Prasad Dadsena, Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No.7, Bhataon, P.S. Bhatgaon, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Co-Operative Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Raipur Division Raipur, In Front Of Lalganga Shopping Mall, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 3. The Secretary, Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog, Gandhi Chowk, Raipur (C.G.). 4. The Chief Executive Officer, District Co-Operative Central Bank Limited, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 5. The Branch Manager, District Co-Operative Central Bank Limited, Branch, Bhatgaon, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.). 6. The Nodal Officer, District Co-Operative Central Bank Limited, Branch, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.). CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2026.09.10 12:04:59 +0530 2 7. Ramkumar Aditya S/o Tikaram Aditya, Aged About 44 Years R/o Bhatgaon, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.). 8. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Bhatgaon, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Sudip Mallick, Advocate For Respondents No.1, 2 and 8/State : Mr. Karan Bahrani, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No.4 and 6 : Mr. Manas Vajpai, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent No.7 : Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate. Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 02/09/2026 1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records pertaining to the case from the respondent authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned orders dated 03.08.2021 & 10.02.2021 (Annexure P/1) till the final outcome of complaint case 148/2016 pending before the respondent no. 3. 10.3 To kindly grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 is working as Cashier; petitioner No.2 is working as Accountant and petitioner No.3 is working as Cashier in District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, 3 Branch Bhatgaon. At the relevant point of time, respondent No. 7 was also working as In-charge Manager of Paddy Procurement Center, Dhangaon. During paddy purchase year 2013-14, allegedly he had committed certain misappropriation of government funds by preparing forged documents relating to paddy purchase. Upon inquiry conducted, respondent No.7 was found guilty and vide order dated 15.03.2017, the competent authority has dismissed respondent No. 7 from service. Thereafter, alleging misappropriation of amount regarding paddy purchase year 2013-14, a complaint was also made by respondent No.7 before respondent No.3/Lok Ayog against the petitioners as well as certain other employees. Pursuant to the said complaint, a case bearing Complaint Case No.148/2016 was registered against the petitioners. While the aforesaid complaint case was pending adjudication, respondent No. 4 issued impugned orders/letters dated 03.08.2021 and 10.02.2021, collectively filed as Annexure P-1, whereby respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were directed to register FIR against the petitioners. It is these orders/letters dated 03.08.2021 and 10.02.2021 which are under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders/letters (Annexure P/1) are bad in law, being perverse and erroneous. In respect of same allegation, respondent No.2 as well as Inquiry Officer have earlier conducted enquiry and prepared report, in which, petitioners have not been found guilty. As in the inquiry proceeding earlier conducted, respondent No. 7 himself was found responsible for preparation of forged documents in respect of purchase of paddy and later on he has been removed from service, he has made false complaint against the petitioners only for taking revenge against 4 them. In the complaint case registered against the petitioners, respondent No. 3/Lok Ayog has not passed any punitive order against the petitioners and the same is still pending adjudication. Therefore, at this stage, direction for registration of FIR against the petitioners is abuse of power. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court vide order dated 03/12/2021 granted interim protection to the petitioners of no coercive steps shall be taken. As the respondent No. 7 is making false and frivolous complaints against the petitioners and other employees before different authorities, impugned orders be set aside till final outcome of Complaint Case No.148/2016. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that, upon a preliminary examination of the records and material available, it prima facie appears that there has been misappropriation of a substantial amount of public funds in relation to the procurement of paddy, involving serious financial irregularities and procedural lapses; it is further contended that such acts not only indicate possible misconduct on the part of the persons involved but also warrant a thorough inquiry and appropriate action in accordance with law to safeguard public interest and ensure accountability. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly considering the fact that the allegations against the petitioners relate to the same transaction in respect of which earlier inquiry proceedings were conducted and the petitioners were not found guilty, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned respondent authorities, namely respondents No. 4 to 6, to consider and examine 5 the case of the petitioners afresh in the light of the earlier orders passed in their favour, wherein the petitioners were not found guilty, and to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law after due consideration of the material on record. 7. The petitioners are also directed to appear before the concerned respondent authorities as and when required, and upon such appearance, the said authorities shall be at liberty to consider the matter independently and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations or findings recorded in earlier proceedings. 8. The concerned respondent authorities are also directed to examine the role of the persons involved in the present matter and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law; particularly in view of the submission made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State that there appears to have been misappropriation of a substantial amount of public funds in relation to the procurement of paddy. 9. Till fresh decision is taken interim order dated 03/12/2021 shall remain in force. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Chandrakant