Kamal Kishor Kaushik v. State of Chhattisgarh Through SHO Police Station Sarkanda, Distt. Bilaspur & Ors.

Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

25.11.2025 1 Heard Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents. 2 The present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS Act, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:

It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the application by making an order to 2 quash the crime no. 574/2016 dated 29.08.2016 for offence u/s 13(1) & 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 & read with sections 167, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120B of IPC pending before police station Sarkanda as crime no. 574/2016 and discharge from the case to the applicant.

3 Brief facts of the case are that an application under Section 156(3) of CrPC was made by the respondent No.2 i.e. complainant Rajneesh Sahu before the Hon’ble Special Judge stating that Siddhanshu Mishra on the basis of Power of Attorney executed by Smt.

Sonia Bai and others, owners of lands bearing Khasra Nos. 424/1, 424/4, 424/5 & 424/6 measuring 0.223 hectare, obtained information under 22 points from concerned patwaris namely Chandra Ram Banjare & Kamal Kishore Kaushik and sold them to various people namely Aruna Sharma, Chandra Kumari Furnawis, Vilash Sharma, Nalini Shukla, Archana Jaiswal and others. As the lands of these khasras were not available on the spot, the possession of lands bearing Khasra No. 409 were given to the respective purchasers. The Tahsildar namely Ghanaram Banjare who was the then posted also passed the order of mutation on the basis of sale deeds. It was alleged in the application that the alleged accused persons namely Sudhanshu Mishra, Patwaris Chandra Ram Banjare, Kamal Kishor Kaushik and the then Tahsildar Ghanaram Banjare prepared forged documents and obtained pecuniary benefits, therefore, the offences be registered against them for offences punishable U/s 420, 120(B), 467, 468, 465, 471, 474 of IPC and Section 13 (1) (D) and 13 (2) of Prevention of 3 Corruption Act.

Upon direction issued by the learned Special Judge, the offence was registered as Case Crime No. 574/2016 at Police Station Sarkanda against the petitioner along with other three persons. 4 Being aggrieved by the same, the present petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WPCR No. 305/2016 challenging the FIR of the case and the complainant / respondent No.2 herein also filed a WPCR No. 52/2017 for expediting the investigation of the case, which was also disposed of by the learned Single Judge with the direction to conclude the investigation within a period of six months vide order dated 11.09.2017. Thereafter, the said order was recalled as the writ petitioner has filed a Review Petition No.112/2017 and both the petitions were directed to be decided together vide order dated

24.11.2017 and the petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of on the basis of the statement made by the learned State counsel that the closure report has been filed whereas, the WPCR No. 52/2017 filed by the complainant / respondent No.2 herein was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.06.2019. 5 Later on, upon enquiry being made with respect to the directions given by this Court under Section 156(3) CrPC for investigation of the matters which were pending, the present case was scrutinized once again and found that though the closure report was prepared way back on 30.11.2018, but the same has not been forwarded to the competent Court, therefore, the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur vide impugned order dated 21.01.2025 directed for re-investigation of the present 4 case, pursuant to which, the concerned Investigating Officer has sent a notice to the petitioner for the purpose of interrogation as some further investigation is going on.

Being aggrieved by the same, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the afore-quoted prayer. 6 This Court vide order dated 08.04.2025 has directed the State Counsel to explain as to why the Investigating Officer concerned has issued notices to the petitioner for his appearance even after submission of the closure report and it was directed till the next date of listing, no coercive action should be taken against the petitioner. 7 In compliance of the same, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur has filed an affidavit stating therein that upon enquiry being made with respect to the directions given by this Court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation of the matters which were pending, it has come into light that the present case was scrutinized once again and the closure report which was prepared and the same has not been forwarded therefore the matter has been reopened and investigation is stated to be pending, but has not disclosed as to what action has been taken against the Investigating Officer.

In that view of the matter, Director General of Police, State of Chhattisgarh was directed to call explanation from the Investigating Officer who has prepared the closure report in the matter and did not forwarded it to the competent Court. 8 Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it has been informed by learned State counsel for charge-sheet has already been filed against the co-accused Siddhanshu Mishra before the competent 5 jurisdictional Court on 21.11.2025, but cognizance is yet to be taken the and said petitioner has withdrawn the writ petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with liberty to challenge the charge-sheet presented against him. He further submitted that so far as the present petitioner is concerned, investigation against him is still pending and the charge-sheet would be submitted against him after receiving sanction from the competent authority.

9 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, particularly the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed against the co-accused Siddhanshu Mishra before the competent jurisdictional Court on 21.11.2025, but cognizance is yet to be taken the and said petitioner has withdrawn the writ petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with liberty to challenge the charge-sheet presented against him and also considering the fact investigation against the present petitioner is still pending and the charge-sheet against the present petitioner would be submitted after receipt of the sanction from the competent authority before the competent Court, the authority concerned is directed to take a decision with respect to sanction against the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today and if it is granted, the same may be forwarded to the Investigating Officer, who shall file a Police Report under Section 193(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the Competent Court in accordance with law and for a period of four weeks, the petitioner shall not be arrested subject to the condition that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation.

6 10 The Superintendent of Police concerned is directed to send a copy of this order to the competent authority concerned for necessary information and follow up action forthwith. 11 With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant petition stands disposed of. 12 Learned State counsel is directed to send a copy of this order to the Superintendent of Police concerned for necessary information and follow up action forthwith. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Chandra