Atul Kumar Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

4. Mahendra Kumar Madariya S/o Late Dev Singh Madariya R/o Village And Post Pandor, Police Station Utai, Branch Manager, Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Jamgaon (R), District Durg (C.G.)

¶13

...Respondent(s)

¶14

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Abhinav Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General.

¶16

Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN BRIJMOHAN MORLE MORLE Date: 2026.06.02 19:16:28 +0530

¶17

2

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶21

02.06.2026

¶22

1. Heard Mr. Abhinav Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3.

¶23

2. Also heard on I.A. No. 3 of 2026, application for hearing the case during Summer Vacation.

¶24

3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

¶25

“ 10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to call the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the respondent authority.

¶26

10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be issue appropriate writ or passed order for quashing/setting aside the FIR No. 0049 of 2026 dated 21.05.2026 by the respondent No. 3 for offence under Section 316(5) of BNS 2023 against the petitioner.

¶27

10.3 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted. ”

¶28

3

¶29

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as Society Manager at Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Kumhali, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.). As per the agreement executed between the Society and the respondent authorities, the procured paddy was required to be lifted by the Marketing Federation on or before 31.03.2026. However, despite repeated requirements, the paddy was not lifted within the stipulated period and remained stored at the procurement centre for a prolonged duration. He further submits that the alleged shortage of 690.70 quintals of paddy has occurred due to natural and unavoidable factors such as excessive dryness caused by climatic conditions, infestation of insects, damage by rodents and deterioration of gunny bags owing to their poor quality. The shortage is thus attributable to circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner and does not disclose any dishonest intention, misappropriation or criminal misconduct on his part.

¶30

5. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that without conducting any detailed enquiry, without determining the actual cause of shortage and without affording any effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondent authorities have mechanically treated the matter as a criminal offence and lodged the impugned FIR solely on the basis of a preliminary inspection report. The action is in complete violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the directions issued by this Court in WPC No. 2440/2025 and other connected matters, wherein it was observed that in matters relating to shortage of paddy, a proper enquiry and reasonable opportunity of

¶31

4

¶32

hearing ought to be afforded before taking coercive action. He further submits that the agreement governing procurement contains an arbitration mechanism for resolution of disputes and also contemplates departmental action in cases of irregularities. Therefore, at best, the allegations give rise to a civil or contractual dispute requiring adjudication by the competent authority and do not constitute ingredients of any criminal offence.

¶33

6. Learned counsel submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged in a wholly arbitrary and premature manner, without compliance with the contractual provisions, statutory safeguards and binding directions of this Court and, therefore, deserves to be quashed. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not filed any application for anticipatory bail and has approached this Court bonafide seeking quashment of the FIR.

¶34

7. Per contra , learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that during physical verification conducted by officials of the Food Department and Cooperative Department on 23.04.2026, a shortage of 690.70 quintals of paddy valued at Rs. 21,41,170/- and 3,057 gunny bags valued at Rs. 2,13,645/- was detected at the procurement centre under the charge of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner, being the Society Manager, was responsible for maintenance and safe custody of the stock and the enquiry report prima facie discloses serious irregularities causing loss to the Government. It is further submitted that the explanations sought to be offered by the petitioner regarding climatic conditions, drying of paddy, insects, rodents

¶35

5

¶36

and deterioration of gunny bags involve disputed questions of fact which can only be examined during investigation. The FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence and, therefore, no case for interference is made out.

¶37

8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, including the impugned FIR.

¶38

9. A perusal of the impugned FIR reveals that it has been lodged on the basis of a complaint submitted by the Branch Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Durg, Jamgaon (R) Branch. The complaint states that during the Kharif Marketing Year 2025–26, a total of 53,956.40 quintals of paddy was procured at Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Kumhali, and that the entire stock was transported by 01.04.2026. Thereafter, on 23.04.2026, officials of the Food Department and the Cooperative Department conducted a physical verification of the procurement centre and allegedly found a shortage of 690.70 quintals of paddy valued at Rs. 21,41,170/- and 3,057 gunny bags valued at Rs. 2,13,645/-. On the basis of the said inspection report and communications issued by the competent authorities, it was alleged that the petitioner, who was serving as the Society Manager, had misappropriated property worth ₹23,54,815/-. Consequently, directions were issued for registration of an FIR against the petitioner, and a case under Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, came to be registered.

¶39

10. It is well settled that the power of the High Court to quash criminal

¶40

6

¶41

proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) (earlier Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) is extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised sparingly, with great caution, and only in cases where the allegations do not disclose any cognizable offence or where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.

¶42

11. The principles governing the exercise of such jurisdiction have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604; Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill, (1995) 6 SCC 194; Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259; Medchl Chemicals & Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd., (2000) 3 SCC 269; State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, (2005) 13 SCC 540; and Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 , wherein it has been consistently held that at the stage of quashing, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations or enter into disputed questions of fact.

¶43

12. In the present case, the FIR has been registered on the basis of a physical verification conducted by competent authorities wherein a shortage of 690.70 quintals of paddy and 3,057 gunny bags was allegedly detected. The inspection report and the documents forming the basis of the FIR attribute responsibility for the said shortage to the petitioner, who was serving as the Society Manager of the procurement centre. The allegations contained in the FIR, when taken at their face

¶44

7

¶45

value, cannot be said to be inherently absurd, improbable or incapable of constituting a cognizable offence.

¶46

13. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the shortage occurred due to natural causes such as excessive dryness of paddy owing to climatic conditions, infestation by insects, damage caused by rodents and deterioration of gunny bags, coupled with the failure of the Marketing Federation to lift the procured stock within the stipulated period. The petitioner has further contended that the dispute is contractual in nature and ought to have been resolved through departmental proceedings or arbitration in terms of the procurement agreement. However, these submissions constitute matters of defence which necessarily require appreciation of evidence and factual adjudication. Whether the shortage was actually caused by natural factors, whether the petitioner had exercised due care in preserving the stock, whether there was any negligence or misappropriation, and whether the shortage is satisfactorily explained, are all questions which can only be determined after a thorough investigation.

¶47

14. The contention that no detailed enquiry was conducted prior to registration of the FIR and that the principles of natural justice were violated also cannot be accepted at this stage. Registration of an FIR merely sets the criminal law in motion. The object of investigation is precisely to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the allegations. Therefore, the adequacy of the material available with the authorities before registration of the FIR cannot ordinarily be examined while

¶48

8

¶49

considering a prayer for quashing the FIR itself.

¶50

15. The submission that the matter is purely civil in nature is equally unpersuasive. Merely because a contractual relationship exists between the parties or because the agreement contains an arbitration clause does not by itself exclude criminal liability if the allegations disclose ingredients of a cognizable offence. The availability of departmental remedies or contractual mechanisms cannot be a ground to stifle a legitimate criminal investigation at its inception.

¶51

16. It is also significant that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the precise circumstances leading to the alleged shortage have not yet been conclusively determined. The pleas advanced by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact requiring collection and evaluation of evidence. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, cannot undertake a roving enquiry into such disputed factual matters or record findings regarding the correctness of the defence set up by the petitioner.

¶52

17. Having considered the allegations contained in the FIR, the material forming its basis and the settled principles governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations, when accepted at their face value, disclose prima facie material warranting investigation. The case does not fall within any of the categories enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra) justifying quashment of criminal proceedings at the threshold. The defence sought to be raised by the petitioner remains open to be considered by the

¶53

9

¶54

investigating agency during investigation and, if necessary, by the competent court at the appropriate stage.

¶55

18. Accordingly, no case is made out for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing the impugned FIR or the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed . However, it is observed that dismissal of the present petition shall not preclude the petitioner from availing such remedies as may be available to him in law for protection of his personal liberty, including filing an appropriate application for anticipatory bail or any other relief permissible under the BNSS. In the event any such application is preferred, the same shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in the present order.

¶56

19. I.A. No.3 of 2026, an application seeking urgent hearing of the matter during summer vacation, also stands disposed of . All other pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶57

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

¶58

Brijmohan

Atul Kumar Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Kumar Verma 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

Rukhman Rajput Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jagjivan Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Kumar Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pradip Patel @ Rahul Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Ramdhar Gond Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amit Kumar Tiwari, Vs Smt. Sonam Tiwari