Nafr High Court · 2025

Legal Reasoning

There is no prima facie evidence available against the petitioner to hold him guilty of any of the offences as mentioned above.

5. On the other hand, Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent submits that the charge sheet has already been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, and a case has been registered as Criminal Case No. 9412/2019 and now it is for the learned Magistrate for proceed with the matter. He further submits that there are ample evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the offence in question.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

7. The allegations against the petitioner are that he assisted the real candidates to be replaced by forged candidates so that they may pass the recruitment examination. He is also alleged to have prepared forged documents for the candidates.

8. 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.

9. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others {2021 SCC OnLine SC 315}, the Apex Court has 4 observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merits.

10. From perusal of the materials available on record, prima facie, it cannot be held that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. The FIR dated 13.08.2019 is lodged by one Jaganmoy Som, Assistant Commandant, CISF RTC Bhilai Center, against 32 persons, who have impersonated to be candidates applied to participate in written examination conducted by CISF and their biometrics were not matching with the data of candidates in whose favour identification cards were actually issued. The police has conducted a detailed investigation and thereafter the charge sheet has been filed bearing No. 312/2019 dated 07.11.2019 under Section 419, 420, 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC against 37 persons including the present petitioner. The said charge-sheet is also filed under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. as other two main accused persons namely; Dhan Singh and Ravi Singh Phogat who are still absconding. The police has also made seizure of one mobile phone and cash of Rs. 8000/- from the petitioner. Further, the investigating agency had also issued notices under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to the 5 accused candidates and their statements have also been recorded. One of the accused namely, Harish, who had actually applied for the post has stated that one Dhan Singh has taken Rs. 3 lakhs from him for arranging of a person to appear/impersonate in written examination in his place. Similarly, accused Karamvir has stated that he has given Rs. 2 lakhs, accused-Jaiprakash has given Rs. 2 lakhs, accused Somvir has given Rs. 2 lakhs, one accused-Ajay Kumar has given Rs. 2 lakhs, one Sonu Kumar has given Rs. 2 lakhs, one accused namely, Chintu, has given Rs. 2 lakhs, one accused- Ashish has given Rs. 2 lakhs, one accused Jai Bhagwan has given Rs. 2.50 lakhs. One accused namely; Ravindar has categorically stated that present petitioner has asked for Rs. 2 lakhs from him for employment under the said recruitment and the permanent domicile certificate of Chhattisgarh produced on his behalf is forged and he has not appeared in the written examination. One accused namely; Vikas has stated that the present petitioner has forged the domicile certificate and assured the employment for Rs. 5 lakhs and arranged for a person to impersonate to be him to appear in the examination. Similarly, one accused namely; Rohit has given the similar statement as stated above and from the perusal of the statements of all the accused/candidates that similar assurance was given to them to provide employment on account of money. Prima facie, perusal of the charge-sheet shows that the petitioner alongwith the other accused persons have committed an offence under Section 419, 420, 120-8, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. A bare perusal of the charge sheet would reveal that the main accused are Dhan Singh, Ravi Phogat and Satpal Singh (present petitioner), who have accomplished the said offence in a very organized manner. 6

11. In the matter of State of Hariyana & Others v Bhajanlal & Others", reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, the Hon'ble Apex Court has illustratively given certain guidelines wherein, the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised, but the petitioner has utterly failed to bring home his case within any of the given guidelines. The trial has already commenced where the petitioner may put forth his version and lead evidence in support of his case. As such, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and quash the FIR including the entire criminal proceedings.

12. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY AMIT KUMAR DUBEY

Arguments

: Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 08/07/2025

1. Heard Mr. Anil S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent.

2. The petitioner, by way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) the petitioner 2 seeks quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No. 273/2019 and the final report No. 312/2019 submitted by the Police of Police Station, Utai District Durg, before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, and the entire criminal proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Durg, bearing Criminal Case No. 9412/2019 for the offences pu nishable under Section 419, 420, 120- B, 467 and 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The facts, in brief, is that the Assistant Commandant of Central Industrial Security Force, Utai lodged an FIR at Police Station, Utai on

13.08.2019 alleging that some of the candidates appearing in the recruitment tests were bogus candidates and some other persons were appearing in place of the real candidates in order to ensure that they may be selected in the recruitment process. As many as 32 persons were named in the FIR. The petitioner herein is alleged to have assured the candidates that he will get them employed in the CISF and had also assisted in preparation of forged documents. After the investigation, some more accused were added. It is also alleged that some of the the accused persons had demanded Rs. 1 Lac to Rs. 8 Lacs to get them employed in CISF.

4. Mr. Anil S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has also been filed. The petitioner has neither prepared nor fabricated any document nor used them as genuine. The petitioner is an ex-serviceman and after his retirement, he is running a training centre where the candidates obtain training for participate in the Armed forces and merely some candidates from his training centre have participated in the selection process, the petitioner has been roped in this case. 3