Radheshyam Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:58539-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 494 of 2020

¶6

MANPREET KAUR

¶7

Digitally signed byMANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.12.04 10:54:25 +0530

¶8

Radheshyam Sahu S/o Ramji Sahu Aged About 39 Years Resident Of Village- Sunderkera, Police Station Gobra Nawapara, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Gobra Nawapara District- Raipur Chhattisgarh,

¶12

2 - Ceo Janpad Panchayat Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G, Mr. Rajesh Tiwari and Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocates

¶15

Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶16

Judgment on Board

¶17

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶18

03.12.2025

¶19

Heard Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also

¶20

heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for

¶21

2

¶22

respondent / State and Mr. Rajesh Tiwari and Ms. Madhunisha Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶23

The petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayer:

¶24

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the entire criminal proceeding in crime No.388/2019 of Police Station Gobra Navapara, District Raipur (C.G.) in the interest of justice.”

¶25

Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a written report lodged by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Abhanpur, Police Station Gobra Nawapara registered Crime No. 388/2019 for offences under Sections 466, 467 and 468 read with Section 34 of the IPC. As per the prosecution story, in Gram Panchayat Sunderkera, the excavation/digging work of Maa Karma Pond was carried out between 06.04.2016 and 19.04.2016 under the Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, and during the execution of the said work, it was alleged that forged muster rolls pertaining to labour engagement were prepared by the Sarpanch, other concerned authorities and the present applicant in furtherance of a common intention. Acting upon the report submitted by the SDO (Revenue), Abhanpur, the police commenced investigation, during which various relevant documents including muster rolls, memos and records of Janpad Panchayat Abhanpur were seized, and statements of witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer. After completion of the

¶26

3

¶27

investigation, the Police Station Gobra Nawapara filed the chargesheet on 30.01.2020 before the competent Court for the aforesaid offences along with the collected documents and witness statements, which now form the basis of the prosecution case. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings initiated on the strength of the said report of the CEO, Janpad Panchayat Abhanpur.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire criminal proceedings initiated in Crime No. 388/2019 are wholly unsustainable as the material collected during investigation does not disclose any involvement of the petitioner in the alleged preparation of forged muster rolls during the execution of digging work of Maa Karma Pond at Gram Panchayat Sunderkera between 06.04.2016 and 19.04.2016. It is pointed out that the prosecution witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C., particularly witness Bhupendra, have categorically stated that he had not worked under the MNREGA scheme between 06.04.2016 and 12.04.2016, and further, the material on record establishes that the petitioner Radheshyam Sahu was appointed as Rojgar Sahayak in Gram Panchayat Sunderkera only on 07.05.2016, i.e., after the period of the alleged forgery. Since the petitioner was not in service and had no role in maintenance of muster rolls during the relevant period, the allegation of his participation in preparation of forged muster rolls is ex facie false. Reliance is placed on the order dated 29.08.2019 passed by the SDO (R),

¶29

4

¶30

Abhanpur in Panchayat Case No. 08A/89/2016-17, wherein after detailed inquiry into the allegations of forged signatures and irregularities in MNREGA work, the Sarpanch, Up-Sarpanch and certain Panchas were held responsible, but no adverse finding whatsoever was recorded against the petitioner. Many witnesses, including Bhuneshwar Sahu, Gopi Tarak, Horilal Yadav, Hiralal Tandan, Gokul, Komal Tandan, Puran Yadav and Nilkanth Sahu, also retracted earlier complaints stating that they were made under the instigation of a journalist, thereby demolishing the prosecution’s foundation.

¶31

Learned counsel further submits that even the CEO, Janpad Panchayat Abhanpur who is the complainant in the FIR addressed a written communication dated 16.09.2019 to the Station House Officer, Police Station Gobra Nawapara, requesting withdrawal/quashing of the FIR insofar as it relates to the present petitioner, acknowledging that no role of the petitioner was found in the alleged offence. This, coupled with the fact that the petitioner was granted regular bail by this Court on 09.01.2020 in M.Cr.C. No. 7714/2019 after a prima facie satisfaction that he was unnecessarily implicated, strengthens the petitioner’s claim of false implication. It is contended that the entire charge-sheet, even if accepted at its face value, does not disclose any material indicating the petitioner’s participation, common intention or mens rea for offences under Sections 466, 467, 468/34 IPC. The petitioner has produced relevant documents including the FIR,

¶32

5

¶33

statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the SDO (R) inquiry order dated 29.08.2019, his appointment order dated 07.05.2016 and the bail order dated 09.01.2020, all of which demonstrate that he neither held office nor participated in any MNREGA work during the relevant period. In absence of basic ingredients of forgery and criminal conspiracy against the petitioner, continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law, and therefore, the petitioner prays that the entire criminal case arising out of Crime No. 388/2019 be quashed.

¶34

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent / complainant submits that the FIR lodged by the CEO, Janpad Panchayat Abhanpur, was based on the official report regarding alleged irregularities and preparation of forged muster rolls during the execution of the digging work of Maa Karma Pond in Gram Panchayat Sunderkera from 06.04.2016 to 19.04.2016. It is submitted that the report, supported by preliminary enquiry conducted by the SDO (R), Abhanpur, indicated involvement of certain office-bearers in forging records to show attendance of non-existent laborers under the MNREGA scheme. The complainant states that the allegations were made in public interest to safeguard government funds and ensure accountability in Panchayat work. While the inquiry revealed that some persons were not involved, the complaint against the petitioner and others was filed on the basis of available official records and statements, and the complainant maintains that the FIR was lodged in accordance with due

¶35

6

¶36

process to initiate investigation into the alleged criminal offences.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the FIR registered at Police Station Gobra Nawapara, Crime No. 388/2019, was lodged based on a report received from the CEO, Janpad Panchayat Abhanpur, regarding alleged preparation of forged muster rolls and misrepresentation of labor work under the MNREGA scheme for the digging of Maa Karma Pond, Gram Panchayat Sunderkera, between 06.04.2016 and 19.04.2016. The State submits that the police, acting on the report, conducted a detailed investigation, recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., collected relevant documents and verified the authenticity of the muster rolls and other records. Upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed on 30.01.2020 before the competent Court against all accused, including the petitioner, based on the materials collected. It is submitted that the police acted in accordance with law, following proper procedure, and the continuation of the proceedings is justified as the investigation disclosed prima facie evidence implicating certain persons, while the role of each accused, including the petitioner, is a matter for judicial determination in trial.

¶38

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with this petitions.

¶39

The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others

¶40

7

¶41

v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down the principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first information report and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the report, their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised, which are as under: -

¶42

“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 channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶43

(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.

¶44

(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

¶45

8

¶46

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.

¶47

(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.

¶48

(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.

¶49

(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.

¶50

(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.

¶51

(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.

¶52

We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare

¶53

9

¶54

cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.”

¶55

The principles laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra), clearly authorize this Court to exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash criminal proceedings which are maliciously instituted, vexatious, or prima facie frivolous, particularly where the proceedings are used as a tool for harassment rather than to serve justice.

¶56

Upon perusal of the records, including the FIR lodged by the CEO, Janpad Panchayat Abhanpur, the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the inquiry order passed by the SDO (R.) Abhanpur dated 29.08.2019, the petitioner’s appointment order dated 07.05.2016, and the regular bail order granted to the petitioner on 09.01.2020, this Court finds that the petitioner- Radheshyam Sahu, has been falsely implicated in the present case. The material on record establishes that the petitioner was not employed in Gram Panchayat Sunderkera during the period 06.04.2016 to 19.04.2016 when the alleged irregularities and preparation of forged muster rolls took place. Further, the statements of witnesses and the SDO (R.) inquiry clearly indicate that the petitioner had no involvement in the alleged offences under Sections 466, 467, 468/34 IPC. In the

¶57

10

¶58

absence of any prima facie evidence against the petitioner, continuation of proceedings against him would amount to abuse of process of law.

¶59

In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the criminal proceedings in Crime No. 388/2019 registered at Police Station Gobra Nawapara, District Raipur and further proceeding in Criminal Case No.637/2020, shall be quashed only insofar as they relate to the petitioner- Radheshyam Sahu. No observations or directions are made in respect of other accused persons, who shall face trial as per law. The petition is accordingly allowed .

¶60

Sd/Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶61

Manpreet

Radheshyam Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radheshyam Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjay Prasad and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Aniruddha Sidar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chandrahash Sahu @ Pappu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mangatu Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Komal Bhimge Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

M/S Techno Prints Vs the State of Chhattisgarh