Raigarh, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Kosir, District
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:31227-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1562 of 2022 Omkar Tiwari S/o Badri Prasad Tiwari Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Ulkhar, Police Station And Tahsil- Sarangarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Kosir, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Naresh Kumar Chandra S/o Gauri Lal Chandra Aged About 44 Years R/o Gram Bardula, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) For Respondent/State For Respondent No. 2
Legal Reasoning
deposited the excessive amount of the bank. Therefore, prima facie the offence is not made out against the petitioner. The petitioner has neither collected the cash nor was he a computer operator in the Committee. The loan was to be granted by the Manager after inspection of the documents of land area and were not prepared by the petitioner as the other staff of the society are responsible for making entries in computer after verifying the records. The petitioner has been used as a scape goat to save the real culprit of the crime. It has lastly been submitted by Mr. Agrawal that the entire amount alleged to have been defalcated by the petitioner, has been deposited / returned back to the Society as well as the farmers. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 opposes the petition and submits that it is a case of serious nature involving financial crime and as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the complainant / respondent No. 2 submits that the respondent No. 02 is the complainant in the instant case. The complaints has been filed by the respondent No. 02 along with other villagers/complainants to whom the petitioner has cheated but they have not been arrayed as party who are necessary party for the just and proper adjudication of 4 the instant petition. It was the petitioner who has misused his power and post and made forged entries in the name of the complainants and thus cheated number of persons. the complainant and other farmers came to know about the alleged crime when they received message on their mobile regarding the loan from Apex Bank. False and excess loan amount is reflecting in the loan account of the complainant and other farmers. In connection with the aforesaid F.I.R. No. 266/2021 the petitioner preferred an anticipatory bail application MCrC(A) No. 276/2022 which has been rejected on merits by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 20.07.2022 holding that inquiry was conducted and only thereafter the report has been lodged. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others {2021 SCC OnLine SC 315}, the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically laid down certain guidelines to be taken into consideration while dealing with the petition under Section 482 of CR.P.C. and observed that when the investigation is in progress and facts are hazy and 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. As such, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. A bare perusal of the FIR would demonstrate that the petitioner is alleged to have made false entries in the portal of the Society which gave loans to the farmers and the petitioner being the Assistant Manager prima facie appears to be involved in making manipulations in the documents/portal, though the said entries may not have been It 5 has been informed that the petitioner was arrested on 10.05.2023 and thereafter has already been granted regular bail by a learned Single Judge of this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 4237/2023 by order dated 27.07.2023. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and the petitioner is alleged to have cheated not only the farmers but to the co-operative society also. 9. 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. 10.In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), 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 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 6 whether or not the allegations of FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merits. 11.From perusal of the materials available on record, prima facie, it cannot be held that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner and 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. As such, this petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.07.09 11:43:17 +0530
Arguments
: Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, 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. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Malay Jain, earned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 as 2 well as Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioner, by way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) has prayed for quashing of FIR bearing No. 266/2021, registered at Police Station, Kosir, District Raigarh, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of the IPC, on 19.11.2021. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the Complainant Naresh Kumar Chandra on date 13.11.2021, himself with other farmers of village Bardula, Kapisda, Barbhatha, Rampur signed written complaint against the petitioner who is the Assistant Manager of Seva Sehkari Samiti, Bardulara. It is alleged that, the loan amount received for fertilizer seed in the month of June- July 2021, was correctly entered in the farmer book of the farmers but increased amount of loan was entered into the portal and cheated the farmers. 4. Mr. Agrawal submits that the petitioner is working as Assistant Committee Manager in Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Bardula, Raigarh, and the said society is registered bearing No. 1565. The allegation against the petitioner is that he made forged entry by increasing amount loan which has been granted to the various farmers, whereas the petitioner is not doing the work of entry and he did not have any knowledge about the increase in loan value. He has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. That the petitioner has not made such forged entries and has not used the computer on which the enhanced loan amount was entered. Before lodging the F.I.R., an inquiry was 3 conducted by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Raigarh behind the back of the petitioner and also without giving any opportunity to defend himself and on the basis of the said inquiry, the F.I.R. lodged against the petitioner is illegal and wrong. During investigation the farmers/customer of the society against whom the said increased amount was issued by way of loan, all of them have