Ashish Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

MANPREET KAUR

¶3

Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.01.28 10:51:08 +0530

¶4

2026:CGHC:4291-DB

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

CRMP No. 264 of 2026

¶8

Ashish Agrawal S/o Shri Bajrang Lal Agrawal Aged About 42 Years Occupation- Business, Owner Of M/s Shri Bholenath Industries Chhuipali, R/o Main Road Chhuipali, Post- Singhoda, Tahsil- Saraipali, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The S.H.O. Police Station- Singhoda, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Prosecution)

¶12

2 - Lakshman Kumar Patel S/o Shri Lochan Patel Posted As Supervisor In District Cooperative Central Bank Raipur, Branch Saraipali, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Complainant)

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer

¶15

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

¶16

Judgment on Board

¶17

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶18

27.01.2026

¶19

1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶20

2

¶21

Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1 / State.

¶22

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

¶23

“i. First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 94/2025 dated 22.12.2025 registered at Police Station Singhoda, District Mahasamund, CG. for the offence punishable under Sections 318(3), 318(4), and 61(2)of BNS;

¶24

ii. All consequential proceedings arising consequent upon the registration of the aforesaid FIR.”

¶25

3. Prosecution story in a nutshell is that the petitioner, being the owner and proprietor of M/s Shri Bholenath Industries, Chhuipali, had entered into an agreement with the District Marketing Officer, Mahasamund, for custom milling of 19,200 quintals of paddy for the Kharif Marketing Season 2025–26, and pursuant thereto a Delivery Order dated 19.12.2025 was issued in favour of the petitioner for supply of 350 quintals (875 bags) of paddy from the Singbahal Paddy Procurement Centre. On 20.12.2025 at about 6:00 PM, upon receiving information regarding misappropriation of paddy at the said procurement centre, the Food Inspector, Tehsildar and the complainant conducted a spot inspection and prepared an inquiry report, during which the in-charge of the centre, co-accused Buddhivant Pradhan, produced the relevant Delivery Order, Delivery Memo, Rice Miller Gate Pass and weighing sheets. On verification, it was found that although the

¶26

3

¶27

Delivery Order and Delivery Memo showed dispatch of 350 quintals i.e. 875 bags of paddy to Shri Bholenath Industries through truck No. CG-06-HB-4361, only 500 bags were actually found loaded in the said vehicle, indicating a deliberate shortage intended to cause wrongful loss to the Government. The inquiry further revealed the alleged involvement of co-accused Buddhivant Pradhan, Hemant Sahu, Girijashankar Bhoi and the petitioner Ashish Agarwal, owner of the rice mill, in the said irregularity. Consequently, on the basis of the written complaint of the Food Inspector/Respondent No.2, FIR bearing Crime No. 94/2025 dated 22.12.2025 was registered at Police Station Singhoda, District Mahasamund, for offences punishable under Sections 318(3), 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the matter is presently under investigation.

¶28

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the registration of the impugned FIR is a clear abuse of the process of law as it does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence and has been lodged merely on conjectures and apprehensions. It is contended that the petitioner, being only the owner and proprietor of M/s Shri Bholenath Industries, Chhuipali, had no role whatsoever in the transportation of paddy and was neither present at the spot nor involved in the alleged incident, and therefore cannot be fastened with criminal liability. Learned counsel further submits that although the Delivery Order was issued for 875 bags of paddy, due to poor road conditions only 500 bags were loaded

¶29

4

¶30

for transportation and the remaining 375 bags were retained at the procurement centre for subsequent transportation, a fact duly recorded in the panchnama prepared by the Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society, Singbahal, which also categorically states that the mill owner was not informed of the said adjustment. It is argued that the petitioner was operating strictly under a valid agreement for custom milling of 19,200 quintals of paddy for the Kharif Marketing Season 2025–26 and, therefore, the present case is not one of illegal transportation or misappropriation. Rather, the petitioner was transporting the paddy at his own risk and peril and any loss, if at all, would have been suffered by him, ruling out the essential ingredients of cheating, misappropriation or criminal conspiracy.

¶31

5. Learned counsel further submits that the offences under Sections 318(3) and 318(4) of the BNS, being punishable up to five and seven years respectively, attracted the requirement of a preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) of the BNSS, which was admittedly not conducted prior to registration of the FIR, rendering the entire action vitiated. Placing reliance on the law laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 678 , it is submitted that even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at their face value, they neither constitute any offence nor disclose a cognizable case, and are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person

¶32

5

¶33

could reach a conclusion to proceed against the petitioner. In such circumstances, learned counsel submits that this Hon’ble Court is well within its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the impugned FIR and the consequent proceedings, in order to prevent misuse of the criminal process and to save the petitioner from unnecessary harassment.

¶34

6. Learned Panel Lawyer submits that the impugned FIR has been registered strictly in accordance with law on the basis of a written complaint and a preliminary inquiry conducted by the concerned authorities, which clearly revealed serious irregularities and deliberate shortage of paddy intended to cause wrongful loss to the Government. It is contended that the inquiry report and spot inspection categorically demonstrate that despite issuance of a valid Delivery Order and Delivery Memo for 350 quintals (875 bags) of paddy, only 500 bags were found loaded in the vehicle, which prima facie establishes misappropriation and attracts the ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 318(3), 318(4) and 61(2) of the BNS. Learned Panel Lawyer further submits that the petitioner, being the beneficiary of the Delivery Order and the owner of the rice mill to which the paddy was to be transported, cannot at this stage absolve himself of liability by merely claiming non-presence at the spot, as the role of each accused, including the petitioner, is a matter of investigation. It is argued that the panchnama and other documents relied upon by the petitioner are matters of defence and their veracity cannot be examined in

¶35

6

¶36

proceedings seeking quashment of the FIR. Learned Panel Lawyer also submits that the requirement of preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) of the BNSS is discretionary and not mandatory, and in view of the seriousness of the allegations involving public distribution and Government property, the police were justified in proceeding directly with registration of the FIR. Placing reliance on settled principles of law, it is submitted that at the stage of investigation, the Court ought not to embark upon a meticulous examination of facts or evaluate the defence of the accused, and since the FIR discloses a prima facie cognizable offence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶37

7. Further, a bare perusal of the FIR would indicate that on the basis of information received regarding misappropriation of paddy at the Singbahal Paddy Procurement Centre, a spot inspection was carried out by the concerned officials, during which the Delivery Order, Delivery Memo, Rice Miller Gate Pass and weighing sheets were verified, and it was found that although a Delivery Order for 350 quintals and a Delivery Memo showing dispatch of 875 bags of paddy to Shri Bholenath Industries, Chhuipali, had been issued, only 500 bags were actually loaded in the truck bearing No. CG06-HB-4361. The FIR further reflects that the alleged shortage was treated as deliberate and intended to cause wrongful loss to the Government, and on that basis the petitioner along with other co-accused was named as being involved in the said irregularity, leading to registration of the crime for the alleged offences.

¶38

7

¶39

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

¶40

9. Considering the allegations made in the FIR, the material placed on record and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences and the involvement of the petitioner cannot be ruled out at this stage. The issues raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact and matters requiring appreciation of evidence, which fall within the domain of investigation and trial. At this preliminary stage, this Court cannot conduct a roving or detailed enquiry into the merits of the allegations.

¶41

10. In the absence of any exceptional circumstances warranting interference, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition is accordingly dismissed .

¶42

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

¶43

Manpreet

Ashish Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Agrawal 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

Manoj Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sakib Ahmed Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Mahadev @ Maharu

T.P. Gupta Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited

Abhijit Dutta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mithun Banerjee Vs State of Chhattisgarh