State of C.G v. Devendra Pandey & another for the offences punishable U
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.03.19 17:42:43 +0530 2025:CGHC:12725-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 964 of 2025 Devendra Kumar Pandey S/o Shri Kashi Prasad Pandey Aged About 64 Years (The That Time) Chairman, Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur, Post Box No. 6, Sehkar Bhavan, Nehru Chowk, Ps Civil Lines, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, R/o Purani Basti, District Korba Chhattisgarh versus ... Petitioner 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer (S.H.O.) State Economic Offence Wing 2 (EOW) And Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Opposite Jai Jawan Petrol Pump, G.E. Road, Azad Police Station, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Vindheshwari Prasad Khare S/o Shri Brij Bihari Khare Aged About 60 Years R/o Kapil Nagar, Sarkanda, Ps Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Through Chief Executive Officer, Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Post Box No. 6, Sahakar Bhavan, Nehru Chowk, Ps Civil Lines, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate For Respondent/State : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Dy. A.G. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Chief Justice , Judge Hon'ble Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Devershi Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘B.N.S.S.’) by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to
Legal Reasoning
FIR bearing Crime no.02/2022, at P.S.- Crime No. 02/2022, P.S- State Economic Offence Wing 2 (EOW) & Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Dist: Raipur (C.G) with subsequent Charges sheet in Special 3 Sessions (PC Act) Case no.02/2024, titled as "State of C.G Vs. Devendra Pandey & another for the offences punishable U/s 409, 120(b) of I.P.C & Sec 7 (c), 13(1)a, & 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, pending before Special Judge (PC), Dist: Bilaspur (C.G) with Compensations for being falsely implicated in the crime, in the interest of justice. It is further humbly & most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to direct the respondent authorities to proceed against the private respondents per law Specifically against Resp.no.2 along with compensation and Any other relief or reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly also be granted in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent No.2 herein is a former employee of Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur/respondent No.3, where the complainant No.2 stood terminated on account of proven misconduct from the said Bank with 4 effect from 06.09.2011 and facing criminal trial for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 472 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) pursuant to the FIR registered under Crime No.946/2011. 4. Further case of the prosecution is that, FIR was registered against the present applicant and co-accused bearing Crime No.02/2022 for the aforesaid offences alleging therein that the present applicant at the relevant time, Vijay Bisen was posted as Chief Executive Officer (CEO), the present applicant at the relevant time was posted as the Chairman cum Director of the District Cooperative Central Bank, Bilaspur (C.G.) and they committed irregularities in purchase of a car & Moisture Measurement Equipment and caused financial loss to the Government to the tune of Rs. 52 lakhs. The allegations furthered to, a car as well as 100 moisture measurement equipment were purchased in the Cooperative Bank. The cost of one moisture measurement equipment was Rs. 13,365/- and at the same rate, the other Co-operative Banks had purchased the same equipment from the Same company, therefore, it cannot be said that the present applicant caused the financial loss in the purchase of the moisture measurement equipment. The second fold of the charges were that the purchasing of machines also cannot be fastened over the petitioner, as earlier also held in the enquiry report, that the same were done by the 'Samitis' which the petitioner/ Devendra Pandey was never a part of, rather the orders were passed by the VP Khare/Vipnana Adhikari. 5 5. The issue there in the case diary and the allegations with regard to the car which is still lying with the Bank, it was purchased contrary to the Chhattisgarh Store & Purchase Rules without obtaining prior approval from the higher authorities. Co-accused Vijay Singh Bisen has filed the anticipatory bail application, bearing MCRCA No.1170/2023, which was allowed vide order dated 12.10.2023. 6. The complainant firstly filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(Crl.) No.75/2013 (Vindeshwari Prasad Khare v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 10.12.2012, seeking the reliefs claimed, but their Lordships declined to entertain the writ petition and permitted the petitioner to move proper petition before the High Court to vindicate his grievance in accordance with law, and was dismissed on 10.05.2013. 7. Thereafter, WPCR No.157/2013 was preferred by the petitioner on 19.12.2013 stating inter alia that V.P. Khare was an officer of the Central Vigilance Commission, Income Tax Department & Reserve Bank of India against petitioner herein Devendra Pandey, who was the Chairman of respondent No.3 Bank at that particular time, but no action was taken against him and on account of his illegal act. It was alleged that the complainant was suffering at petitioner’s hands for daring to disobey his illegal instructions, publishing and bringing his corrupt practices to the knowledge of the higher authorities. The petitioner has committed corrupt practice in purchase of car, Sutli & furniture and also committed irregularities in transferring employees on account of which 6 the State Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Raipur has registered a preliminary enquiry on 06.09.2011, under Preliminary Enquiry
Legal Reasoning
No.26/2011 against the petitioner and one Shri D.C. Thakre, Chief Executive Officer of the Bank, and the said EOW has informed to the State Government on 06.09.2011 after registering preliminary enquiry against them. The said WPCR No.157/2013 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 13.05.2019. 8. Thereafter, FIR was registered on 23.02.2022, which was after a lapse of more than 10 years followed by another petition by respondent
Decision
No.2/V.P. Khare, registered as WPCR 297/2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 25.07.2023. 9. Mr. Devershi Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the charge-sheet has been filled on the very same set of facts and materials collected, upon which WPCR No.157/2013 was accordingly ordered in detail. He further submits that the case is politically motivated, where the petitioner was never made a party in WPCR No.297/2023 and the State had also not upraised the fact regarding the previous affidavit filled before this Court. The complainant was the Marketing head (Vipnan Adhikari) at the time of passing of the order for purchasing the Moisture meters. It has been contended that no delay has been explained in the entire case, where quality of the witnesses after more than 14 years would also degrade the quality of evidence as witnesses may forget the materials with efflux of time and no proper sanction has been obtained. It has been further contended that the 7 delay in filing a charge sheet can violate the accused's right to a speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the prosecution must provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. If the delay is not justified, it may lead to the quashing of the charge sheet or dismissal of the case. It has been argued that the annexures would demonstrate that during enquiry the statements of witnesses/documents/evidences were recorded projecting the facts/seizures, even at the time of consideration of bail application and the investigating officer admitted the existence of certain facts. If such facts are accrued in favor of the accused, the evidences/statements made during investigation cannot be withheld by police to predetermine commission of offence. The State Agency and the prosecution are not meant to convict accused. During the investigation, if the statements are recorded they are obliged to place them before the Court for adjudication. It has been further argued that from perusal of the contents of the FIR, it would reveal that the Police personals were deliberate in part of removing the previous set of evidences, affidavits filed before this Court and were adamant to somehow carve out a case against the petitioner by falsely implicating him in the impugned FIR despite the fact the petitioner had not committed any crime. Thus, the impugned FIR along with subsequent proceedings against the petitioner deserved to be quashed. 10. On the other hand, Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, learned State counsel as well as Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, opposed the submissions made by learned 8 counsel for the petitioner and submits that the FIR and charge-sheet disclose the cognizable offence against the petitioner and as such, no interference is called for. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 12. 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.). 13. In the well celebrated judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 605, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Guidelines are as follows: “(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety to do not prima facie 9 constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 156(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently 10 improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can every reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 14. Further, 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 the offence, Court 11 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. 15. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Apex Court has 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 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.) 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 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of B.N.S.S.), 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 merit. Further, while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (now 528 of B.N.S.S.) , final conclusions are as under:- 12 “i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevantprovisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; 13 vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go 14 into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid 15 down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim 16 order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps” either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/ disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the 17 powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order. xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of “no coercive steps to be adopted” within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by “no coercive steps to be adopted” as the term “no coercive steps to be adopted” can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied.” 16. Keeping in view the aforesaid law and considering the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the submissions raised by learned counsel for petitioner relate to the questions of fact, and thus, can not be examined by this Court in proceedings under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. The 18 appreciation of evidence or the reliability of the allegations cannot be examined at this stage. 17. From perusal of the charge-sheet, it transpires that the complaint made by V.P. Khare, suspended Assistant Engineer, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Bilaspur, regarding criminal conduct, corruption against the newly elected President, Shri Devendra Pandey. Further, investigation report in relation to the complaint made by the Vice President and Directors of District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Bilaspur regarding gross financial irregularities by the President, Shri Devendra Kumar Pandey, which was made available by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh Raipur, after the formation of an investigation committee in relation to the above three complaints, attested photocopies of all the three investigation reports dated 25.03.2015 submitted by the investigation committee. The complaint made by the Vice President and Directors of District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Bilaspur, regarding widespread financial irregularities i.e. "For paddy purchase in about 200 committees of District Bilaspur, Janjgir and Kabirdham (Pandariya), the bank chairman Mr. Pandey has made payment for A-Grain Abu Bhai, a low quality moisture measuring instrument, by pressurizing the branch managers of the committees and in connivance with the supplier, whereas the moisture measuring instrument supplied is not as per the prescribed standards, it is of low quality. The actual price of that instrument is not more than 4-5 thousand rupees. Payment has been made at the rate of Rs 13,120 per moisture measuring instrument. In 19 this way, the committees have suffered financial loss of about 10 lakhs. Based on the complaint, a photocopy of the record of the file maintained in the District Cooperative Central Bank was obtained, in which a note was mentioned regarding the purchase of moisture measuring instrument for paddy purchase year 2010-11. According to which, the purchase order has been issued to all the committees and the note to buy has been given by the Chairman Shri Devendra Pandey, but in compliance with the note, the bank has not given instructions to the Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society to buy the moisture measuring instrument. According to the information given by the bank and the photocopy of the adjustment voucher received from the branches, the bank has directly received the quotation in the name of the branch/cooperative institution and the moisture measuring instrument has been supplied to the institutions and the branch managers have made the payment to the supply agency by debiting the revolving/saving account of the institutions. The Chairman/Managers of the cooperative institutions have stated in a written statement that the consent of the Board of Directors has not been taken before purchasing the moisture measuring instrument, but the debit voucher has been given to the committees. As per the rules, the committees should have been instructed to buy. As per the attached list, moisture meter has been purchased from A-Grain India Ambala for Rs.13,365/- per unit for Lormi 15 committee, Masturi 10 committee, Ratanpur 4 committee, Champa 14 committee, Janjgir 18 committee, Baradwar 10 committee, Jaijaipur 16 committee, Sakti 17 committee, Malkharoda 13 committee. 20 For the committees associated with the remaining branches, moisture meter has been purchased from Swap India Agency Bilaspur for Rs. 13,120 per unit. Thus, there is a difference of Rs. 245 per unit in the price of both the agencies, which is a clear violation of the purchase rules and has caused financial loss to the committees, which reflects the intention to cause financial loss to the committees. As per the instructions of Registrar's letter No. 4600 dated 14.10.2010, the store purchase rules have not been followed. As per the information submitted by the bank, moisture measuring instruments worth Rs.40,48,530/- were purchased on the basis of only three quotations". 18. Further, upon perusal of the investigation report, it was found that the applications received in compliance with the order dated 08.09.2014 passed by the Chhattisgarh Government and others, the investigation committee has found that "Moisture meters for the committees have been purchased by the bank and sent to the committees. Tender was not called for purchase. The amount has been paid to the supplier by debiting the account of the committee. Moisture meters were purchased from two companies, in which 131 moisture meters were purchased from A-Grain India Ambala at the rate of Rs 13,365/- per piece and at the remaining places from Swap India Agency Bilaspur at the rate of Rs.13,120/- per piece. The purchase was found to be conducted against the rules. According to the information submitted by the bank, moisture measuring instruments worth Rs.40,48,530/- were purchased on the basis of only three quotations". On providing the certified copy of the investigation report submitted by the investigation committee constituted 21 by the Registrar's office regarding the financial irregularities in the year 2010-11 in the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Bilaspur, it was found that the complainant Shri V.P. Khare Assistant Engineer, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited Bilaspur, has suspended and the investigation committee has found that "moisture measuring instruments (A) were sent to the committees by taking Rs. 05 lakh and 10 lakh respectively from Grain and Abu Bhai, whose DDs were collected by Prajapati of the marketing cell and payments were made. Based on the complaint point, a photocopy of the file record maintained in the District Cooperative Central Bank has been obtained, in which a note has been mentioned regarding the purchase of moisture measuring instruments for paddy purchase year 2010-2011, according to which the note has been given by the Chairman Shri Devendra Pandey to all the committees by issuing purchase orders, but in compliance with the note, the bank has not given instructions to the Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Institutions regarding the purchase of moisture measuring instruments. According to the information given by the bank and the photocopy of the adjustment voucher received from the branches, the bank has directly received quotations in the name of the branch / cooperative institution and moisture measuring instruments were supplied to the institutions. 19. It is further revealed from the charge-sheet that the branch managers have debited the revolving/savings account of the institutions and paid the supply agency. The presidents/managers of the cooperative institutions have stated in their written statement that the 22 consent of the board of directors was not taken before purchasing the moisture measuring instrument. Rather, the debit voucher has been given to the committees. In the year 2010, when the list of primary agricultural cooperative credit societies under the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Bilaspur was made available by the Chief Executive Officer, letters were issued to the managers of 298 primary agricultural cooperative credit societies to provide statements and documents as per the list. As per the issued letter, when the present managers of the societies appeared, the part investigators Inspector Harvinder Singh, Inspector Rahul Tiwari and Inspector Keshav Narayan Aditya questioned each committee manager separately and recorded statements as per their statements and when the documents related to the purchase of the moisture measuring instrument were made available, self-attested photocopies of all the documents were attached to the case by the committee managers and instructions were given to present the original records/documents as per instructions. 20. During the investigation, after analyzing the statements given by the committee managers and the documents provided, it was found that in the year 2010, the moisture measuring instruments of Swap India Company and A-Grain Company were not purchased directly by the committees, but were first provided to 298 committees by the branches under the head office, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Bilaspur, under which 298 committees were included. Thereafter, the then committee managers were instructed to prepare a proposal and send it in the committee's proceedings proposal register (minutes book). 23 The current committee managers were made aware of the situation regarding the purchase of moisture measuring instruments in the year 2010 by the then committee managers. No committee manager has confirmed in his statement the process of purchasing the moisture measuring instruments by the committee on its own. Chairman/Director Devendra Pandey and Chief Executive Officer V.S. Bisen violated/disobeyed the orders/directives of the Government and by abusing their position, both the accused, in an improper and dishonest manner, instead of getting the moisture measuring instruments purchased by the committees, centrally purchased moisture measuring instruments from different companies through the Head Office of the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Bilaspur and distributed them among the committees. After distribution, the purchase process was done by the committees and the amount for the payment of the instruments was debited from the accounts of the committees through the branch managers and the amount was made inward in the Head Office of the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Bilaspur and the payment was made to the concerned firms/companies. 21. During investigation on taking the statement of Abde Haq Chimthanawala (Abu Bhai), owner of Swap India Bilaspur Company, he clearly told that he bought around 100 pieces of moisture measuring instruments from Delhi at the rate of Rs. 5000 per piece and gave a commission of Rs.4000/- per instrument to accused Shri Devendra Pandey and supplied these moisture measuring instruments to each committee through branch managers. A bill of each moisture measuring 24 instrument was made at the rate of Rs.13120/- and given to the committees for payment and I received the price of each moisture measuring instrument at the rate of Rs.13120/-. Thus, it has been confirmed prima facie that when the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh Raipur instituted an inquiry regarding the irregularities in the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Bilaspur, the inquiry committee found that "Vice Chairman and Director Member, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, for purchasing paddy in about 200 committees of District Bilaspur, Janjgir and Kabirdham, the bank chairman Mr. Pandey has made payment for A-Grain Abu Bhai of substandard moisture measuring instrument for paddy purchase in the committees by pressurizing the branch managers and colluding with the supplier, whereas the moisture measuring instrument supplied is not as per the prescribed standards, it is of substandard quality. The actual price of that instrument is not more than 4-5 thousand rupees. Payment has been made at the rate of Rs.13120/- per moisture measuring instrument, in this way the committees have suffered financial loss of about 10 lakhs. In this way, Devendra Pandey after being appointed to the post of Chairman/Director, by misusing his position and by putting pressure on the officers/employees of the bank and co-operative societies, he ignored/violated the instructions/rules of the Government and motivated his subordinate Committee Managers and Branch Managers to get the amount for payment of the moisture measuring instrument debited from the accounts of the Committees and get the payment done to the 25 supplying companies/firms as a result of which the payment was made by the Committee Managers. 22. In view of the above, by acting improperly and dishonestly, Shri Devendra Pandey caused financial loss of about Rs.10 lakh rupees to the Government in the purchase of moisture measuring instrument. The then Chief Executive Officer V.S. Bisen, whose official duties included that it was necessary to follow the rules/instructions of the Government in any type of action of the bank, but V.S. Bisen was found to be misusing his position by not performing his official duties and instead of getting the moisture measuring instruments purchased from the committees, he purchased them himself and distributed them to the committees and the price amount was collected through the bank account and paid to the firms/companies. 23. On the basis of complete investigation, in the year 2010-11, in District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Bilaspur, the then Chairman/Director Shri Devendra Pandey and the then Chief Executive Officer Shri V.S. Bisen clearly violated/disregarded the rules of the Government and by improperly and dishonestly used the government money for their own benefit by purchasing luxury vehicles and against the rules for purchasing moisture measuring instruments for the committees, causing financial loss of Rs.17,34,639/- to the Government. Similarly, in the year 2011-12 also, it has been confirmed that in the process of purchasing moisture measuring instruments, they purchased moisture measuring instruments for the committees by improperly and 26 dishonestly misusing their position. Hence, the accused are Shri Devendra Pandey, the then Chairman/Director and Shri V.S. Bisen. It is prima facie proved that the offence under Sections 409 and 120B of the IPC and Section 7(C), 13(1)A and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, PC Act as amended in 2018 was committed against Mr. Bisen, the then Chief Executive Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Bilaspur. 24. From the above stated case laws, it is apparent that the above stated contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner can not be examined by this Court. The adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. In view of the material on record, it can not be held that the impugned criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. FIR or criminal proceedings can be quashed only in accordance with parameters laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. 25. The Courts should oust and obstruct unscrupulous litigants from invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court on the drop of a hat to file an application for quashing of launching an FIR or investigation and then seek relief by an interim order. It is the obligation of the Court to keep such unprincipled and unethical litigants at bay. It is intellectual 27 truancy to avoid the precedents and issue directions which are not in consonance with law. It is the duty of a Judge to sustain the judicial balance and not to think of an order which can cause trauma to the process of adjudication. It should be borne in mind that the culture of adjudication is stabilised when intellectual discipline is maintained and further when such discipline constantly keeps guard on the mind. 26. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly from the perusal of the FIR lodged by the complainant as well as charge-sheet, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. It has been further considering the fact that the present petitioner has been enlarged on anticipatory bail and during such a reputed service of bank, he has committed offence of financial irregularities, as such, the present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction to quash the impugned FIR as well as further proceedings. 27. In view of the aforesaid, the petition lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. 28. The instant Cr.M.P. filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu