Allowed

Kailash Chandrawanshi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC28 Jul 2023CRMP/231/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh accepted petitions to quash an FIR and charge sheet regarding irregularities in crop insurance payments. The Court held that since the errors were clerical, rectified, and resulted in no financial loss or personal gain to the petitioners, the proceedings lacked prima facie case ingredients and should be quashed.

What did the court decide?

The FIR No. 203 of 2017 and the subsequent charge sheet are quashed.

Kailash Chandrawanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRMP No. 231 of 2018

¶5

Kailash Chandrawanshi Aged about 33 years S/o Shri Khelan Ram Chandrawanshi, Occupation - Former Data Entry Operator, Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Dashrangpur/Agriculturist Resident of Village - Birkona, Police Station House - Pipariya Tahsil - Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.). ---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station House Pipariya Out Post Dashrangpur District Kawardha (Chhattisgarh).

¶8

---- Respondent

¶9

CRMP No. 233 of 2018

¶10

Tarkeshwar Kumar Sinha (Correct name is Talkeshwar Kumar Sinha) Aged about 32 years S/o Shri Sanat Ram Sinha, Occupation - Former Data Entry Operator, Sewa Sahakari Samiti Sonpuri, Agriculturist Resident of Village - Sonpuri, Post Guda Chowki, Dashrangpur Police Station House - Pipariya Tahsil - Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶11

---- Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station House Pipariya Out Post Dashrangpur District Kavardha (Chhattisgarh). ---- Respondent

¶14

CRMP No. 583 of 2018

¶15

Sajan das Gop Aged about 53 years S/o Shri Makhan Das Gop, Occupation - Former Samiti Prabhandak, Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Dashrangpur R/o at present - Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Guru Ghasidas Chowk Ward no. - 18 Rajnandgaon - Branch Krishi Shakha Kawardha Tahsil Kawardha District - Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶16

---- Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station House Pipariya Out Post Dashrangpur District Kawardha (Chhattisgarh).

¶19

---- Respondent

¶20

CRMP No. 2059 of 2018

¶21

Bhagwat Ram Chandravanshi, S/o Budhram, aged about 47 years, R/o Village Birkona, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.).

---- Petitioner

Versus

-2-

The State of Chhattisgarh, through Department of Police, Home Affairs, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).

¶26

The Superintendent of Police, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.).

¶27

The Police station Pipariya, district Kabirdham, through its Station House Office, Police station Pipariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.).

¶28

---- Respondents

¶29

CRMP No. 590 of 2018

¶30

Naresh Kumar Sahu, Aged about 34 years S/o Shri Dwarika Ram Sahu, Occupation - Former Sahayak Samiti Prabhandak, Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Painaka Village Panaika,Tahsil Kawardha District - Kabirdham (C.G.). ---- Petitioner

¶31

Versus

¶32

State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station House Pipariya Out Post Dashrangpur District Kawardha (Chhattisgarh). ---- Respondent

¶33

(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)

¶34

For Petitioners : Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate Mr. Gajendra Sahu, Advocate Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Kashif Shakil, Deputy Advocate General

¶35

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶36

28.07.2023

¶37

1. The petitioners have preferred these petitions for quashing of FIR No. 203/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Pipariya, Kawardha, consequent charge-sheet submitted on 15.03.2018 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha.

¶38

1. The brief facts of the present case are that First Information Report (FIR) No. 203/17, dated 14.09.2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was registered at the Police Station Pipariya to the effect

¶39

-3-

¶40

that accused persons/petitioners committed irregularities in the payment of crop insurance under the Prime Minister Crop Insurance Scheme to its beneficiaries. They manipulated accounts causing financial loss to the farmers.

¶41

Counsel for the petitioners would submit that after registration of the offence, matter was investigated by the Police and the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petitions to which reply has been filed by the State. They would further submit that on 16.06.2017 due to a technical error, the sanctioned amount of the Crop Insurance fund was transferred online to some other farmers and fewer amounts were paid to the rest of the farmers. This error was caught on 07.07.2021 and soon it was rectified on 10.07.2021, all the excess payments which were made to the other farmers were taken back either by persons or by trickle return and the actual sanctioned amount was paid to the concerned farmers. They would further submit that upon complaint of this matter to the Collector, the matter was inquired into by the SDM, Kawardha and the petitioners were examined by the enquiry Officer and they explained the fault and informed them of its rectification too. The SDO(R) and Deputy Collector, Kawardha submitted a report to the Collector where irregularities, errors and corrections were mentioned, but unfortunately, the Collector directed for registration of FIR against the petitioners on 22.07.2017 to Sub Registrar, Cooperative Society, Kabirdham and CEO/Nodal Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank, Kawardha. They again emphasized that in the departmental enquiry itself, there was a clear finding of mistake and rectification of the mistake, everything has been adjusted and nothing remains for rectification as there was no financial loss. They also

¶42

-4-

¶43

submitted that due to political enmity, the petitioners have been roped into this matter, even though the Branch Manager Bharat Bhushan Gahine was also found guilty for the alleged irregularities but it was directed by the Collector to lodge a report against the petitioners. Thus, they would pray for the quashing of the FIR, charge sheet and subsequent criminal proceedings pending before the JMFC, Kawardha. They placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 CRI LJ 527); Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013 AIR SCW 784); Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2013 AIR SCW 6062); Sasikala Pushpa and others v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2019 SC 2280); Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka (2008 AIR SCW 1640); Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. and others (2003 CRI LJ 1249); Anand Kumar Mohatta and anr. v. State(Govt.of NCT of Delhi) Dept. of Home and anr. (CRI Appeal No. 1395 of 2018 dt. 15.11.2018) and judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of T. R. Arya v. State of Punjab (1987 CRI LJ 222). Also in the matters of Rekha Jain Vs. State of Karnataka AIR 2022 Supreme Court 2268; Vijay Kumar Ghai and others. Vs. State of West Bengal and others (2022) 7 - SCC 124; Sushil Sethi & others Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh & others (2020) 3 SCC 240; W.P. (Cr.) No. 323/2021 Dr. Raman Singh Vs. State of C.G. & others, order dated 11.06.2021; Dr. Sambit Patra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, W.P.CR. No. 257/2020 order dated 12.04.2021; Dr. Apurva Ghiya Vs. State, W.P.(Cr.) No. 310/2020, order dated 07.10.2020, and Shivendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of CG., W.P.Cr. No. 1924/2022, order dated 13.02.2023.

¶44

On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the

¶45

-5-

¶46

submission and submit that upon receipt of a complaint the Collector, Kawardha directed for enquiry upon which thorough inquiry was conducted and the petitioners were found involved in irregularities concerning the payment of crop insurance under the Prime Minister Crop Insurance Scheme. Their actions led to the manipulation of accounts, which resulted in significant financial losses to the farmers. Thereafter, First Information Report (FIR) No. 203/17, dated 14.09.2017 was registered at Police Station Pipariya, and a charge sheet has already been filed before the concerned Court and the criminal case is pending before the Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, looking at the seriousness of the allegations and the evidence gathered during the investigation, these petitions may be dismissed. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBI v. Aryan Singh (2023 SCC OnLine SC 379) and State of Odisha vs. Pratima Mohanty (2021 SCC OnLine SC 1222).

¶47

1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶48

1. In the matter of Bhajan Lal (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down certain guidelines with regard to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has also issued a note of caution that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly by ascertaining whether the complaint filed by the complainant is an abuse of the process of the Court and whether the allegations made in the complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused/petitioners and whether the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute a cognizable offence.

¶49

-6-

¶50

1. The guidelines given in the case Bhajan Lal (supra) in para 102 are as follows:

¶51

(i) 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 do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶52

(ii) 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 155(2) of the Code.

¶53

(iii) 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.

¶54

(iv) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 153(2) of the Code.

¶55

(v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶56

(vi) 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.

¶57

(vii) 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. "

¶58

1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Rajiv Thapar (supra ) , while considering the prayer for quashment of the entire criminal proceedings made by an accused by invoking

¶59

-7-

¶60

inherent power, has proposed the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment, which are as follows:

¶61

23. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC:

¶62

(i). Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?

¶63

(ii). Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false?

¶64

(iii). Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

¶65

(iv). Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.

¶66

1. The matter of Sasikala Pushpa (supra) has been referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners to demonstrate that no prima facie case of forgery or impersonation is made out against the petitioners in the present case.

¶67

10)In Umesh Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the scope of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the following manner:-

¶68

-8-

¶69

"The scope of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is well defined and the inherent power could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court and to otherwise, to secure the ends of justice. However, in exercise of such power, it is not permissible to appreciate the evidence as it can only evaluate material documents on record to the extent of prima facie satisfaction of existence of sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused and the Court cannot look into the materials, the acceptability of which will essentially be a matter of trial. Any document filed along with the petition levelled as evidence, without being tested and proved, cannot be examined".

¶70

In the case of Varla Bharath Kumar and others v. State of Telangana and others, [2017 (9) SCC 413] , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the extraordinary powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of law or to secure the ends of justice. It is also held that where the allegations made in the FIR or made out from the material collected during the investigation, resulting in the charge sheet, even if, are taken at their face value in their entirety, do not prima facie disclose an offence against the accused nor do they disclose, ingredients of the offence alleged, then, the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code may be exercised. It is also permitted to exercise such powers, 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.

¶71

1. In the case of Som Mittal (supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the power of the High Court with regard to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and has made the following observation:-

¶72

-9-

¶73

"When the words "rarest of rare cases" are used after the words "sparingly and with circumspection" while describing the scope of Section 482, those words merely emphasise and reiterate what is intended to be conveyed by the words "sparingly and with circumspection". They mean that the power under Section 482 to quash proceedings should not be used mechanically or routinely, but with care and caution, only when a clear case for quashing is made out and failure to interfere would lead to a miscarriage of justice. The expression "rarest of rare cases" is not used in the sense in which it is used with reference to punishment for offences under Section 302 IPC, but to emphasise that the power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR or criminal proceedings should be used sparingly and with circumspection. Judgments are not to be construed as statutes. Nor words or phrases in judgments to be interpreted like provisions of a statute. Some words used in a judgment should be read and understood contextually and are not intended to be taken literally. Many a time a judge uses a phrase or expression with the intention of emphasising a point or accentuating a principle or even by way of a flourish of writing style. Ratio decidendi of a judgment is not to be discerned from a stray word or phrase read in isolation."

¶74

1. As far as Ajay Mitra (supra) is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the allegation made in the complaint does not prima face disclose the commission of the offence, it can be quashed.

¶75

1. In the matter of Rekha Jain v. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 568, where Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 8 observed as under:-

¶76

"8. ...There must be a dishonest inducement by the accused. As per Section 420 of IPC, whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, can be said to have committed the offence under Section 420 of IPC. Therefore, to make out a case against a person for the offence under Section 420 of IPC, there must be a dishonest inducement to deceive a person to deliver any property to any other person…”

¶77

1. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai (supra) specifically held in paragraph-47 as under:

¶78

“47. ... in order to attract the ingredients of Section of 406 and 420 Indian Penal Code it is imperative

¶79

-10-

¶80

on the part of the complainant to prima facie establish that there was an intention on part of the Petitioner and/or others to cheat and/or to defraud the complainant right from the inception.

¶81

Furthermore it has to be prima facie established that due to such alleged act of herein) had suffered a wrongful loss and the same had resulted in wrongful gain for the Accused (Appellant herein). In absence of these elements, no proceeding is permissible in the eyes of law with regard to the commission of the offence punishable under Section 420 Indian Penal Code ... ."

¶82

(emphasis supplied)

¶83

1. Insofar as reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on Sushil Sethi (supra) is concerned, the same is not applicable in the facts of the present case as that matter pertains to a State case wherein, in the complaint/FIR, neither any specific allegations in terms of Section 420 IPC were made nor the company was made an accused.

¶84

1. In the matter of Dr. Raman Singh (supra), this Court after going through the legal provisions and material available on record reached to the conclusion that prima facie no case is made out against the petitioner and the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended against the petitioner with malafides or with a political grudge.

¶85

1. Now dealing with the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the State.

¶86

1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pratima Mohanty (supra) held in para 14-16 as under:-

¶87

“14.At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the impugned judgment and order the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High

¶88

-11-

¶89

Court has entered into the merits of the allegations and has conducted the mini trial by weighing the evidence in detail which, as such, as observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions is wholly impermissible. As held by this Court in the case of State of Haryana And Ors. vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised either to prevent an abuse of process of any court and/or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In the said decision this Court had carved out the exceptions to the general rule that normally in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the criminal proceedings/FIR should not be quashed. Exceptions to the above general rule are carved out in para 102 in Bhajan Lal (supra) which reads as under:

¶90

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶91

(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 do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶92

(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 155(2) of the Code.

¶93

(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.

¶94

(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.

¶95

-12-

¶96

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶97

(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.

¶98

(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.”

¶99

6.1 Looking to the allegations in the present case against the respondents – accused and considering the fact that chargesheet has been filed by the Vigilance Cell after a thorough investigation, it cannot be said that the case falls within any of the exceptions as carved out by this Court in para 102 in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). It cannot be said that the criminal proceedings initiated against the respondents – accused are an abuse of process of any court. On the contrary, the allegations are an instance of abuse of the powers with a mala fide intention and allotment of the plots to the family members by hatching a criminal conspiracy and to allot the plots to the family members at throw away price causing loss to the B.D.A. and the public exchequer.

¶100

6.2 It is trite that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in rare cases. As per settled proposition of law while examining an FIR/complaint quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in the FIR/complaint. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than any ordinary rule. Normally the criminal proceedings should not be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when after a thorough investigation the charge sheet has been filed. At the stage of discharge and/or considering the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the courts are not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or evidence in detail as if conducting the minitrial. As held by this Court the powers 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.”

¶101

-13-

¶102

1. Likewise in Aryan Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 11 held as under:-

¶103

“11.One another reason pointed by the High Court is that the initiation of the criminal proceedings/proceedings is malicious. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the investigation was handed over to the CBI pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court. That thereafter, on conclusion of the investigation, the accused persons have been chargesheeted. Therefore, the High Court has erred in observing at this stage that the initiation of the criminal proceedings/proceedings is malicious. Whether the criminal proceedings was/were malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this stage. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. In any case, at this stage, what is required to be considered is a prima facie case and the material collected during the course of the investigation, which warranted the accused to be tried.”

¶104

1. After careful consideration of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, this court arrives at the conclusion that although the accused persons/petitioners were charged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with First Information Report No. 203/17 dated 14.09.2017 for irregularities in the payment of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Kharib 2016 , causing financial loss to eligible farmers, the findings recorded in the inquiry report by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Deputy Collector, Kawardha, found the petitioners guilty of the aforementioned offence, however, after careful perusal of the certificate issued by the Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Rajnandgaon on 29.09.2017 the entire amount of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Kharib 2016 has been adjusted on

¶105

-14-

¶106

10.07.2017 and deposited into the bank accounts/loan accounts of the eligible farmers/complainants. At present, there is no outstanding amount requiring payment to the farmers. From the FIR, charge-sheet and the enquiry report submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Deputy Collector, Kabirdham, as well as the Departmental Enquiry report, the fact of clerical error has been found which was rectified and the amounts have been paid to the eligible farmers/complainants through the trickle method or in-person collection. This indicates that there was no intention on the part of the petitioners/accused to commit the aforementioned offence. Furthermore, at the relevant time, they were working with the concerned bank and no personal gain was detected by the investigating agencies, nor was there any financial loss to the concerned bank. In the present case, the incident took place on 26.06.2017, the petitioners came to know about such a mistake thereafter they adjusted/refunded the amount to eligible farmers on 10.07.2017, thereafter enquiry was conducted and an enquiry report was submitted on 17.07.2017 where direction was given to register FIR against the petitioners. The above-stated discussion shows that there was no intention of the petitioners to cause loss to any farmers or extend the benefit to anyone.

¶107

In light of the foregoing discussions, I am inclined to quash

¶108

-15-

¶109

the FIR No. 203 of 2017 and the subsequent charge-sheet, consequently, the petitions are hereby allowed and the impugned FIR as well as the charge sheet are hereby quashed.

¶110

Sd/-

¶111

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶112

Nadim

Kailash Chandrawanshi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Chandrawanshi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunderlal Kurre Vs Smt. Sushma Sori

M/s. A.R. Traders Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Virendra Kumar Mehar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Rambai Kannojiya Vs Lalita

Tarachand Kankaria Vs Shantilal Kankaria

Tarkeshwar Kumar Sinha (Correct Name Is Talkeshwar Kumar Sinha) Vs State of Chhattisgarh