Dismissed¶45

Rustam Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 May 2026CRMP/1356/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRMP 1356/2026, Chhattisgarh HC Bilaspur DB (Ramesh Sinha CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal J), decided 13.05.2026: petition by Rustam Khan and Badri Prasad to quash 1998 FIR (Crime No. 39/1998, ss. 420/120-B IPC, 13(1)(d)/13(2) PC Act 1988), charge-sheet 41/2018, cognizance order 16.04.2019 and charge-framing order 22.04.2026 in SCC 1/2019 (Special Court PC Act Ambikapur) over alleged supply of old/diseased cows worth Rs. 5,71,000 under 1994-95 dairy scheme; DISMISSED — prima facie cognizable offences disclosed; medical-examination, insurance and delay pleas left to trial; no inherent-jurisdiction interference after framing of charge; Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) referred in arguments only.

What did the court decide?

The allegations made against the petitioners prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences. ¶41

Rustam Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Corruption | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR No. 0/1998 (Crime No. 39/1998), charge-sheet No. 41/2018, cognizance order dated 16.04.2019 and order framing charges dated 22.04.2026 against the petitioners deserve to be quashed in exercise of the Court's inherent jurisdiction. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

The allegations made against the petitioners prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

The material collected during investigation cannot be said to be wholly insufficient to proceed against the petitioners.

¶41

Key takeaways

The contention that the cows were supplied only after medical examination and were insured in favour of the beneficiaries, as well as the plea regarding delay in submission of the charge-sheet, are matters pertaining to appreciation of evidence and defence and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under inherent jurisdiction at this stage.ratio¶41
When the learned Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has already taken cognizance and framed charges against the petitioners, the Court does not find it appropriate to undertake a meticulous examination of the factual disputes raised by them.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Division Bench: Ramesh Sinha, CJ and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J; judgment per Ramesh Sinha, CJ) dismissed CRMP No. 1356 of 2026 seeking quashing of FIR No. 0/1998 dated 03.04.1998 (later Crime No. 39/1998 dated 04.04.1998) under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, charge-sheet No. 41/2018 dated 27.11.2018, cognizance order dated 16.04.2019 and order dated 22.04.2026 framing charges under Sections 120-B and 420 read with 120-B IPC in Special Criminal Case No. 1/2019 before the Special Court (PC Act), Ambikapur. The case arose from a 1994-1995 dairy scheme under Zila Antyavsayee Sahakari Vikas Nigam and Madhya Pradesh Pashudhan Evam Kutkut Nigam in which 52 cows worth approximately Rs. 5,71,000/- were purchased; the prosecution alleged the petitioners conspired with co-accused to supply old, diseased, low-yield cows at higher prices. Held: the allegations prima facie disclose cognizable offences and the investigation material is not wholly insufficient; the pleas of veterinary examination, insurance of the animals and the two-decade delay in filing the charge-sheet are matters of evidence and defence for trial, not adjudicable in inherent jurisdiction proceedings; after cognizance and framing of charge by the Special Court, the High Court will not undertake a meticulous examination of factual disputes; nor can the allegations be called so absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person could conclude an offence is made out. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604), pressed by the petitioners, did not avail them; petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

MANPREET KAUR

¶3

Digitally signed by MANPREETKAUR Date: 2026.05.14 10:35:09 +0530

¶4

2026:CGHC:22518-DB

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

CRMP No. 1356 of 2026

¶8

1 - Rustam Khan S/o Tajuddin Khan Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Sakarkoni, P.S. Majgaon, Distt. Gadwa, Bihar.

¶9

2 - Badri Prasad S/o Kallu Ram Aged About 61 Years R/o Atarra, Distt. Banda, Uttar Pradesh.

¶10

... Petitioner(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home And Police Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

2 - Superintendent Of Police Anti Corruption Bureau Raipur, Tahsil And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

3 - Deputy Superintendent Of Police/ Investigating Officer Anti Corruption Bureau Bilaspur, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal and Mr. Praveen Sharma, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Dr. Sourabh Pande, Dy. A.G.

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

¶18

Judgment on Board

¶19

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶20

¶21

13.05.2026

¶22

1. Heard Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal and Mr. Praveen Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Dr. Sourabh Pande, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents / State.

¶23

2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer:

¶24

“1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to allow the petition and quash the FIR No. 0/98, dated 03.04.1998 (later on FIR No. 39/1998 dated 04.04.1998) registered by Respondent no. 3 against petitioners under section 420, 120-B of Indian Penal Code and 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (Annexure-P/1).

¶25

2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash the Charge-sheet no. 41/2018 dated 27.11.2018 filed by respondent no. 3 before the learned Special Court Prevention of Corruption Act Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) (AnnexureP/2).

¶26

3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash the cognizance order dated 16.04.2019 passed in Special Criminal Case No. 1/2019 between State of Chhattisgarh Vs. P. K. Sharma & others by Special Court Prevention of Corruption Act Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) (AnnexureP/3) is in the interest of justice.

¶27

4. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash the order dated 22.04.2026 whereby

¶28

¶29

framing the charge for punishable offence U/s 120-B & 420-120-B of Indian Penal code against the petitioners by learned Special Court Prevention of Corruption Act Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) and in Special Criminal Case No. 1/2019, between "State of Chhattisgarh Vs. P. K. Sharma & others", is in the interest of justice.”

¶30

3. The brief facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the prosecution case arises out of a dairy scheme implemented during the years 1994-1995 under Zila Antyavsayee Sahakari Vikas Nigam and Madhya Pradesh Pashudhan Evam Kutkut Nigam, under which beneficiaries were selected and 52 cows worth approximately Rs.5,71,000/- were purchased for distribution among them. It is alleged that the petitioners supplied the cows to the concerned department, which accepted the same after medical examination and thereafter distributed them to the beneficiaries. Subsequently, allegations were made that the cows supplied by the petitioners were old, diseased and yielded lesser quantity of milk, despite higher prices having been paid, and that the petitioners, in conspiracy with other co-accused, cheated the authorities and beneficiaries. On the basis of such allegations, FIR No. 0/1998 dated 03.04.1998, later registered as Crime No. 39/1998 dated 04.04.1998, came to be lodged against the petitioners and four other co-accused for offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After investigation, charge-sheet No.

¶31

¶32

41/2018 was prepared on 27.11.2018 and presented before the learned Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act at Ambikapur on 16.04.2019, whereupon Special Criminal Case No. 1/2019 was registered and cognizance was taken against the petitioners and other co-accused. Thereafter, on 22.04.2026, charges were framed against the petitioners under Sections 120B and 420 read with Section 120-B of the IPC. According to the prosecution, the petitioners supplied substandard cattle in conspiracy with the co-accused. However, the petitioners contend that the cows had been accepted only after examination by veterinary doctors and were insured by the insurance company in favour of the beneficiaries, yet they were arrayed as accused in the charge-sheet, leading to filing of the present petition.

¶33

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the registration of FIR No. 0/1998 dated 03.04.1998, later renumbered as Crime No. 39/1998 dated 04.04.1998, against the petitioners for offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is wholly illegal, perverse and unsustainable in law, as the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are absent from the very inception. It is contended that the petitioners had merely supplied cows under the government dairy scheme to the concerned authorities and the same were accepted by Madhya Pradesh Pashudhan Evam Kutkut Nigam only after due medical examination by the competent veterinary doctor, and thereafter

¶34

¶35

the insurance company also issued policies in favour of the beneficiaries after being satisfied about the health condition of the animals. Learned counsel submits that despite such material, the investigating agency mechanically filed Charge-sheet No. 41/2018 dated 27.11.2018 and the learned Special Court at Ambikapur erroneously took cognizance on 16.04.2019 and thereafter framed charges on 22.04.2026 under Sections 120-B and 420 read with Section 120-B of the IPC, without there being any credible evidence to establish conspiracy or cheating on the part of the petitioners. It is further argued that even if the allegations in the FIR are accepted in their entirety, no offence is made out against the petitioners, as there is no material to show dishonest intention from the inception, and therefore the case squarely falls within the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. Learned counsel also submits that the FIR was lodged in the year 1998 whereas the charge-sheet was filed only in the year 2019 after an inordinate delay of more than two decades, which itself vitiates the proceedings and causes grave prejudice to the petitioners. It is further submitted that the allegations are inherently improbable and malicious, and even the post-mortem report of the deceased cow does not indicate that the animal died due to disease or old age, thereby demolishing the substratum of the prosecution case. On these grounds, it is submitted that the FIR, charge-sheet and order framing charges deserve to be quashed.

¶36

¶37

5. Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the petition and submits that the present case does not warrant exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashment at this stage, particularly when the criminal proceedings have already progressed substantially and the learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the offence and framed charges against the petitioners. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the charge-sheet and the material collected during investigation clearly reveals that the petitioners, in connivance with the co-accused, supplied cows under the government dairy scheme which were allegedly old, diseased and of inferior quality, despite receiving payment at the approved rate under the scheme, thereby causing wrongful loss to the beneficiaries and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves. Learned State counsel submits that the investigation disclosed prima facie material showing that though the cows were supplied under a welfare scheme implemented through Zila Antyavsayee Sahakari Vikas Nigam and Madhya Pradesh Pashudhan Evam Kutkut Nigam, the petitioners and other accused persons acted in conspiracy to provide substandard cattle while projecting them as healthy milch animals for financial benefit. It is contended that statements of witnesses, documents collected during investigation and other material annexed with the charge-sheet disclose sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners for the offences alleged, and at the stage after framing of charges, the defence of the petitioners that the animals were medically

¶38

¶39

examined and insured cannot be appreciated in a petition seeking quashment, as such pleas involve disputed questions of fact requiring trial. It is further submitted that the delay in filing the charge-sheet by itself would not render the prosecution invalid when serious allegations involving conspiracy, cheating and misuse of a public welfare scheme are involved. Therefore, learned State counsel submits that since prima facie material exists against the petitioners and the learned Special Court has already framed charges after due consideration, no interference is warranted in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

¶40

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition.

¶41

7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the FIR, charge-sheet, order taking cognizance and the order framing charges, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations made against the petitioners prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences and the material collected during investigation cannot be said to be wholly insufficient to proceed against them. The contention of the petitioners that the cows were supplied only after medical examination and were insured in favour of the beneficiaries, as well as the plea regarding delay in submission of the charge-sheet, are matters which pertain to appreciation of evidence and defence, and the same cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under inherent jurisdiction at this stage. More

¶42

¶43

particularly, when the learned Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has already taken cognizance and framed charges against the petitioners, this Court does not find it appropriate to undertake a meticulous examination of the factual disputes raised by them. It cannot be held that the allegations are so absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that an offence is made out.

¶44

8. Accordingly, no case is made out for interference and the present

¶45

petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed .

¶46

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha ) Judge Chief Justice

¶47

Manpreet

Rustam Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rustam Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Dr. Travan Kumar Todar

Commissioner Vs Mukund Hela

Sukhwant Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Abhinandan Developers Partner-Paras Ostwal Vs Shri Piyush Baid

Smt. Kumari Bai Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mintulla Rahmani Vs State of Chhattisgarh