S.R. Ratnakar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Order on Board

18.11.2025

1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. K.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as 2 Mr. Sangarsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1.

2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers :- “I. Allow the petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. filed by the petitioners. II. Set-aside/ quash the impugned FIR No. 415/2024 dated 12.10.2024 registered at Police Station, Pamgarh, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of IPC. III. Set-aside/quash the impugned final report bearing Final Report No. 226/2025 dated 26.06.2025 filed by Police Station, Pamgarh, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, District-Janjgir Champa for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of IPC (Annexure P/1) against the petitioners. IV. Set-aside/quash the impugned order of cognizance dated 14.07.2025 and entire criminal proceedings pending in Criminal Case No 793/2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, District-Janjgir Champa for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of IPC (Annexure P/2) against the petitioners. V. Grant any other relief, which may be deemed fit in given facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of petitioners.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that at the relevant point of time, the 3 petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 were working as Assistant Grade-2, whereas the petitioner No. 4 was working as Incharge Block Education Officer in the Office of Block Education Officer, Pamgarh, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). The petitioner No. 3 is the legally married husband of late Smt. Sunita Singh and their marriage was performed on 08.06.2006. The said Smt. Sunita Singh was working as Headmistress and posted at Govt. Middle School, Mulmula, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), who died on

10.07.2021 during her service tenure.

4. The complainant/ respondent No.2 Yuvraj Singh Chandel filed an application U/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned JMFC, Pamgarh, alleging therein that late Sunita Singh was the government servant working on the post of Headmistress and during her lifetime, she had adopted the complainant as her son. Smt. Sunita Singh died on 10.07.2021 and after death of Smt. Sunita Singh, the petitioner No.3 Yuvraj Singh Thakur applied for release of death-cum-retiremental benefits and after verifying the records, the amount has been released in favour of said Yuvraj Singh Thakur, whereas the name of Yuvraj Singh Thakur was not recorded in the service record of Sunita Singh as nominee.

5. On the basis of application filed by the complainant Yuvraj Singh Chandel, the learned JMFC, Pamgarh has ordered the concerned Police Station for registration of FIR against the accused person including present petitioners and on the basis of said order, the 4 FIR bearing crime no. 415/2024 has been registered against the accused/petitioners.

6. Earlier the petitioners preferred Cr.M.P. No. 1365/2025 before the this Court for quashing the FIR bearing Crime No. 415/2025 and in the meantime, upon completion of usual investigation, the Station House Officer, Police Station, Pamgarh has submitted the charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, as such, the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23.04.2025 with liberty to file afresh challenging the charge sheet. Hence, this petition with the aforesaid prayers.

7. Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.K.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.3 Yuvraj Singh Thakur is the legally wedded husband of late Smt. Sunita Singh, therefore, he is the successor of property of late Smt. Sunita Singh as per the Hindu Succession Act, as there was no divorce took place between the petitioner No.3 and late Smt. Sunita Singh. He further submits that even the said petitioner is entitled to get compassionate appointment in lieu of his wife late Smt. Sunita Singh and therefore, the he has filed an application before the School Education Department for grant of compassionate appointment and then he filed a Writ Petition (S) No. 7563/2024 before this Court, which was decided on

22.11.2024 with the direction to decide the pending application of the petitioner No.3. He further argued that the marriage of Smt. Sunita Singh and Yuvraj Singh Thakur was performed on 5

08.06.2006 as per Hindu rites and rituals and since they residing together and in all the relevant documents, the name of Yuvraj Singh Thakur is recorded as husband of Smt. Sunita Singh and according to provisions of Rule 44 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 in case of death of wife, the husband is entitled to disburse the amount of death-cum-retirement benefits. The accused Yuvraj Singh Thakur being husband of Smt. Sunita Singh, submitted a Indemnity Bond for disbursement of death benefits and had given an undertaking to return the amount if any dispute arose regarding entitlement of the said amount. He also aruged that the present petitioners have neither prepared any forged or fabricated documents, nor committed any cheating or fraud with the complainant.

8. Mr. Shrivastava contended that the alleged adoption deed was executed on 05.03.2021 and at the time of execution of adoption deed, the said Smt. Sunita Singh was married lady, but the adoption deed was executed without the consent of her husband i.e. Yuvraj Singh Thakur, therefore the said alleged adoption deed is not a valid adoption deed in view of provisions of Section 8 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. He further contended that the dispute is in relation of release of death benefits of Smt. Sunita Singh, which involved civil dispute and therefore no criminality is attracted in the case, but without examining the records and documents, the learned JMFC, Pamgarh has ordered for registration of offence against the accused persons including 6 present petitioners. Even the petitioner No. 4 was not assigned any duty for preparation of benefits of death-cum-retirement of employee. For smooth running of the work, vide order dated

20.12.2018 the works were distributed and according to the said work distribution order, the petitioner no. 4 was not given any duty for preparation or sanction of death-cum-retirement benefits. He also contended that even the complainant/ respondent No. 2 has no right to get the death-cum-retirement benefits of late Smt. Sunita Singh, as he is not legally adopted son of late Smt. Sunita Singh, but only for misuse of process of law, he filed complaint case. Therefore, he prays for quashment of entire criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners before the Court of JMFC, Pamgarh.

9. On the other hand, Mr. Sangharsh Padney, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No.1 opposes this petition and submits that since after due investigation, charge-sheet has already been submitted against the petitioners and perusal of the materials on record discloses commission of cognizable offence, as such, no interference is warranted at this stage.

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

11. 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 F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the 7 Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./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 F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit.

12. It has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, that the proceedings relating to cognizable offences cannot be interfered except on certain grounds enumerated by the Apex Court in the said judgment. It is evident that, none of the grounds mentioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment are attracted in the present case. In State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani & others reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of cognizable ofence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR. Also what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence.

13. From perusal of the contents of the FIR as well as in the charge- sheet, it transpires that the complainant's adoptive mother Late 8 Sunita Singh was working as Headmistress in the Primary School Mulmula, who died on 10.07.2021 and her cremation was performed by the complainant in Prayagraj (UP) in the presence of the family. The deceased had adopted the complainant at the age of two years with the consent of his natural parents and had chosen him as her legal heir and was raising and educating him like a son and had also executed a duly registered adoption deed in the name of the complainant and a will in favour of the complainant in respect of all her movable and immovable properties in which it is clearly mentioned that the adoptive mother of the complainant has bequeathed all her movable assets, all immovable properties and all benefits received from government service, payment of all pending dues, GPF gratuity, GIS, FBF, 100% pension and compassionate appointment which he will receive after the death of his mother.

14. It further transpires that the complainant, after performing the last rites of his adopted mother late Sunita Singh, had submitted the application form along with the death certificate for all the rights of his adopted mother from the government service and compassionate appointment to the Block Education Officer, Pamgarh, in the presence of accused No. 1 Block Education Officer S.R. Ratnakar. On which accused No.1 had said that he would be called by informing the him and when no information was given to the complainant by accused No.1, then the complainant himself went to the Block Education Officer's office 9 and enquired, then it was found that accused No. 1, despite knowing that the name of the complainant Yuvraj Singh Chandel is registered as nominee in the personal estate of deceased Smt. Sunita Singh and the will is also in his favour, despite this, with dishonest intentions, by hatching a criminal conspiracy with all the accused, has illegally paid all the dues to petitioner No.3, in which all the accused, being in collusion, have committed a criminal crime by hatching a criminal conspiracy and by forging the service book of the adoptive mother of the complainant Smt. Sunita Singh

15. It also transpires that though complainant’s mother late Sunita Singh was married to petitioner No.3/accused Yuvraj Singh Thakur, but the accused and late Sunita Singh also did not live together as husband and wife and neither did the petitioner No.3 discharge his duties as a husband till the end of Sunita Singh's life nor was he present at her last rites. The initial investigation found the allegations of forgery in the service book and payment of the complainant's adoptive mother's dues to unauthorized persons to be true. There is specific allegation that the accused, deliberately hatching a criminal conspiracy, misused the death certificate presented by the complainant and paid all the dues to the petitioner No.3.

16. On the basis of aforesaid allegation levelled against the petitioners, this Court cannot come to a conclusion that prima facie, no case is made out against the petitioners. The petitioners will have every opportunity before the learned Trial Court to rebut 10 the allegations levelled against them. This Court cannot examine or appreciate the evidences that may be led before the learned Trial Court and stalling the trial would be wholly unjustified. Further, in light of what has been said by the Supreme Court in Bhajanlal (supra) and Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra), there appears to be no good ground for quashing of the charge-sheet.

17. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra