Anish Singh Gaotum Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by ALOK ALOK SHARMA SHARMA Date:2026.01.14 10:43:17 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:1591-DB

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRMP No. 60 of 2026

¶7

1 - Anish Singh Gaotum S/o Vyas Narayan Gaotum Aged About 39 Years R/o H.No. 79, Ward No. 06, Dhodha, Gandai, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.)

¶8

2 - Dipak Rajput S/o Santhosh Rajput Aged About 25 Years R/o Dhodha, Gandai, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.)

¶9

3 - Santhosh Rajput S/o Tukaram Rajput Aged About 54 Years R/o Dhodha, Gandai, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.)

¶10

... Petitioner(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Of P.S.- Gandai, District- KhairagarhChhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.)

¶13

2 - Rajkumar Solanki S/o Late Shri Dhirajlal Solanki Aged About 47 Years R/o Civil Lines, Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.)

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Govt. Advocate.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶20

12/01/2026

¶21

1 . Heard Mr. Achyut Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the Respondent/State.

¶22

Present is a criminal misc. petition filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, for quashing of the FIR of Crime No. 402/2025, dated

¶23

2

¶24

21.11.2025, registered at Police Station, Gandai, District Khairagarh-ChhuikhadanGandai for the offences under Section 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of BNS, 2023.

¶25

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the accused persons in the offence of Crime No. 402/2025, registered at Police Station Gandai, along with the other accused persons. The said FIR was registered on the report lodged by the Respondent No.2, who was the Deputy Director Agriculture-cum-Joint Secretary, District Level Complaint Redressal Committee, Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY). The allegation against the present petitioners/accused persons are that the villagers of Village Dhodha made a written complaint that some of the persons have formed a group and the lands of the villagers of village and Kalle Gundi were shown to be their own land and by forging the documents and with the collusion of the insurance company and Patwari, they obtained the insurance claim and withdrawn the amount from the bank account. An inquiry committee was constituted by the Collector, and as per the inquiry report, the prima facie involvement of some farmers, CSC Director and representatives of the insurance company in forged insurance of crops was found. It was also found that the present petitioner No.1, Anish Singh Gautam, with the collusion of the insurance agent Sunil Kumar and CSC Director and farmers, obtained Rs. 4,78,000/- towards the insurance claim. It was also prima facie found that a forged cultivation certificate and an agreement with respect to the non-agricultural land were also executed by the petitioner No.2 Deepak Singh and petitioner No.3 Santosh Rajput in order to get the illegal benefit of a crop insurance claim. Involvement of the other accused persons was also prima facie to get the benefit of the said scheme of Fasal Bima Yojna, and the FIR has been registered against 8 accused persons, including the present petitioners, by the police and started investigation.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the FIR was registered only on the basis of the Departmental Inquiry report, which has been submitted without giving any opportunity to put up their defence to the petitioners.

¶27

3

¶28

There are material discrepancies in the inquiry report submitted by the Committee. The petitioners are the farmers and are beneficiaries of the said Fasal Bima Yojna, and they have no control over CSC or the insurance officials. All the processes are being done by the NCIT Portal, and the verification of the insurance policy is to be done through the said NCIT Portal. The petitioner No.1 has submitted an application to the Respondent No.2 informing them that he has received an excess amount under the Fasal Bima Yojna and requested recovery from his bank account in accordance with law, which clearly demonstrates his bona fide. There is no allegation that the petitioners forged documents for themselves and manipulated any government Portal or induced the officials by any means and the ingredients of the offence under Section 318, 336, 338, 340 and 61 of the BNS, 2023 are missing, therefore, the registration of the FIR against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of law and the same is liable to be quashed.

¶29

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that on the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry committee it is alleged that the petitioners and other accused persons conspired and by forging the documents, withdrawn the amount of the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna for which they actually are not entitled and grabbed the huge government money. There is prima facie ingredients in the report made by the complainant, and the FIR has been registered, in which an investigation is going on. The allegation needs detailed investigation, and if nothing is found against the petitioners, the proceeding against them may be dropped; however, at present, there is a sufficient prima facie allegation against the petitioner that requires investigation. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶30

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition.

¶31

From perusal of the FIR, it transpires that there is an allegation against the petitioners, who are the accused persons, that they obtained the insurance claim

¶32

4

¶33

under the Fasal Bima Yojna by forging the documents with the collusion of the other accused persons. A huge amount is alleged to have been grabbed by the petitioners under the said scheme with the collusion of the farmers, as well as bank officials and insurance officials. Whether or not the allegations against the petitioners are sufficient to file a charge-sheet or not, or to proceed against them or not, is to be decided by the police authorities only after the conclusion of due investigation.

¶34

In the matter of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others , reported in AIR Online 2021 SC 192 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 23 held as under :-

¶35

“23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:

¶36

(i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;

¶37

(ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;

¶38

(iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;

¶39

(iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).

¶40

(v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

¶41

(vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

¶42

5

¶43

(vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;

¶44

(viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;

¶45

(ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;

¶46

(x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; ”

¶47

The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merits.

¶48

Considering the allegation made against the petitioners in the FIR, the nature of the offence and the matter in which the alleged offence is said to have been committed by the petitioners and other accused persons. It necessarily requires investigation, and for registration of the FIR, there is sufficient material with the complainant against the present petitioners, and the FIR cannot be quashed at its inception.

¶49

Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the petition to quash the FIR against the petitioners. The present petition lacks merit, liable to be and hereby dismissed.

¶50

Sd/- Sd/-

¶51

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)	(Ramesh Sinha)
Judge	Chief Justice

¶52

Alok

Anish Singh Gaotum v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anish Singh Gaotum 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 Nitin Limbu @ Munku Nepali

Parmanand Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhanai Uraon Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Surit Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Tiwari Vs Pooja Gupta

Santosh Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh