Amanraj Diwakar v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case brief
What is this about?
Quashing of FIR / charge-sheet / cognizance / framing of charge refused; Section 528 BNSS 2023 petition; Article 226 and Section 482 Cr.P.C. inherent jurisdiction exercised sparingly; IPC Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B), 34 — cheating and forgery; employment/job fraud — alleged SECL Bilaspur Computer Operator appointment for Rs. 20,00,000/-; FIR Crime No. 342/2023, P.S. Nawagarh, Janjgir-Champa; supplementary charge-sheet 496-A/2024; Criminal Case No. 833/2024; prima facie cognizable offence disclosed; petitioner beneficiary and participant, not mere bystander; disputed questions of fact left to trial; Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (Crl.A. 330/2021) relied on; petition dismissed.
What did the court decide?
The jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases, and courts should not ordinarily interfere with investigations of cognizable offences; however, where the allegations in the FIR or complaint, even if 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, the FIR or charge-sheet may be quashed under Article 226 or Section 482 Cr.P.C.