1

2024:CGHC:44099-DB

A F R

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRMP No. 1488 of 2023

Gurjinder Pal Singh S/o Parmajeet Singh Plaha Aged About 54 Years

Occupation Director State Police Academy, Chandkhuri, Raipur (C.G.) 492101

R/o E-1, Vivekanand Nagar, Pension Bada, Behind Police Line, Raipur, District

Raipur, C.G.

---- Petitioner

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya

Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.)

2 - The Director General of Police Office Of Director General Of Police Near

Mantralay, Sector-19, Neay Raipur (C.G.)

3 - Superintendent Of Police District Durg (C.G.)

4 - Station House Officer Police Station, Supela, District Durg (C.G.)

5 - Kamal Kumar Sen age 47 years, S/o Hari Narayan Singh R/o Surya Bihar,

Bhilai, B-56, Phase II, Chowki Smritinagar Police Station Supela, District Durg,

(C.G.)

---- Respondents

CRMP No. 2747 of 2023

Gurjinder Pal Singh S/o Paramjeet Singh Plaha, Aged About 51 Years Present

Address E-1, National Highway Colony, Vivekenand Nagar, Pensionbada,

Raipur 492001

----Petitioner

2

Versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya

Atal Nagar Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2 - The Director General of Police, Office Of Director General of Police Near

Mantralaya, Sector 19 New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3 - Superintendent Of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau/Economic Offences Wing

(ACB/EOW), Chhattisgarh, Raipur

4 - Station House Officer, Police Station, ACB/EOW, Chhattisgarh, Raipur

---- Respondents

CRMP No. 683 of 2024

Gurjinder Pal Singh S/o S Paramjeet Singh Plaha Aged About 55 Years R/o E-

1, National Highway Colony, Vivekanandnagar, Pensionbada Raipur - 492001,

District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

----Petitioner

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department, Government

Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - The Secretary Law And Legislative Affairs Department, Government Of

Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3 - Superintendent Of Police District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4 - The Station House Officer Police Station Kotwali District Raipur,

Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents

For Petitioners :Mr. Rajesh Garg, Senior Advocate (through Video

Conferencing) and Mr. Himanshu Pandey,

Advocates.

For Respondents/ State:Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate

For Respondent No. 5 :Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Advocate.

3

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

13.11.2024

1.Heard Mr. Rajesh Garg, Senior Advocate (through video conferencing)

as well as Mr. Himanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also

heard Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, learned Government Advocate for the

State/respondents, as well as Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, learned

counsel for the respondent No. 5-Kamal Kumar Sen.

2.Since the petitioner, in all the three petitions, is common and the issues

are inter-related and similar in nature, they are being heard and disposed

of together by this common judgment.

3.In CRMP No. 1488 of 2023, the petitioner has prayed for following

relief(s):

“(a) That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct

the respondent authorities to produce the entire record

pertaining to the case of petitioner.

(b) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash

the FIR bearing FIR No. 590 registered against the present

Petitioner in P.S. Supela, District Durg, C.G. u/s 388, 384,

506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as

Chargesheet No.334/2022 and all consequent criminal

proceedings in light of justice and equity.

(c) That this Hon'ble court may further be pleased to pass

any other order in favour of petitioner as it may deem fit and

4

proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with

cost.”

4.In CRMP No. 2747 of 2023, the petitioner has prayed for following

relief(s):

“(a) That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct

the Respondents authorities to produce the entire record

pertaining to the case of Petitioner.

(b) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash

the order dated 04.08.2023 passed by the Ld Trial court

wherein charges have been framed under sections 13(1)

(E), 13(2) & 12 of PC act and Section 467, 471, 201 &

120B of IPC and all consequent criminal proceedings

pertaining to case no. 01/2022 pending before concerned

trial court in light of justice and equity.

(c) That, further Hon'ble court may quash the order dated

15.09.2023 and declare the Prosecution Sanction order no.

08/26/2022/21-A(Prose)/CG, Nava Raipur, dated

04.03.2022 under section 197 CrPC and Prosecution

Sanction order no. 26011/18/2022-IPS.II dated 19.09.2022

under section 19 of PC act as illegal and void.

(d) That this Hon'ble court may further be pleased to pass

any other order in favour of Petitioner as it may deem fit

and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case

with cost.”

5.In CRMP No. 683 of 2024, the petitioner has prayed for following

relief(s):

“(a) That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct

the respondent authorities to produce the entire record

pertaining to the case of petitioner.

(b) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash

the FIR bearing FIR No. 134/21 lodged against the present

Petitioner in P.S. Kotwali, District Raipur, C.G. u/s 124-A

5

and 153-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Charge

sheet No.120/2021 and consequent criminal proceedings

arising there from in light of justice and equity.

[ANNEXURE P/1 (Colly)].

(c) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

quash the sanction order dated 18/08/2021 bearing

No.08/72/2021/21-Ka(Abhi.)/ C.G. and sanction order

dated 18/08/2021 bearing No.08/73/2021/21-Ka(Abhi.)/

C.G. [(ANNEXURE P/2 (Colly)].

(d) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct

an independent and impartial inquiry against the concerned

official(s)/any other person(s) at whose instance the

present criminal prosecution has been initiated and carried

out;

(e) That this Hon'ble court may further be pleased to pass

any other order in favour of petitioner as it may deem fit and

proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with

cost.”

6.As per the petitioner, he belongs to 1994 batch of Indian Police Service

and was initially allotted Madhya Pradesh cadre. On reorganization of

the State of Madhya Pradesh, he was reallocated to the State of

Chhattisgarh. He has been conferred with number of awards/medals by

the Government in recognition of his committed and efficient services to

the Police Department. He has served in naxal affected areas of State of

Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh as Inspector General of Police,

Naxal Operations. He has been awarded “Police Medal for Gallantry” in

the year 2007 and in the year 2011, he was awarded President’s Police

Medal for Meritorious Service.

7.An FIR bearing Crime No. 9/2015 was registered by the Anti Corruption

Bureau of the State of Chhattisgarh in relation to the irregularities in

Nagrik Apurti Nigam (for short, the NAN) which procures food grains.

6

Two diaries were recovered during the raids which contained particulars

of illegal gratification paid to various Government functionaries and

acronyms like “CM Sir” and “CM Madam” etc. which caused a political

storm in the State. The charge sheet in the said FIR No. 9/2015 was filed

before the concerned trial Court on 06.06.2015 and the trial commenced.

On 17.12.2018, the political dispensation changed and another political

party came into power and new Chief Minister took oath. On 08.01.2019,

an order was issued by the General Administration Department (GAD)

constituting Special Investigating Team (for short, the SIT) to re-

investigate FIR No. 9/2015 on the request of Mr. Anil Tuteja who was the

prime accused of NAN scam. The legality of the constitution of SIT was

challenged by way of filing a public interest litigation being WP(PIL) No.

10/2019 before this Court wherein an interim order was passed on

15.02.2019 observing that the SIT may not act in a manner which was

prejudicial to anybody till its status was finally decided by the Court. On

28.02.2019, the petitioner was appointed as Inspector General of Police,

ACB/EOW and appointed as head of the said SIT vide order dated

11.03.2019. On 14.09.2019, he was called for a late-night meeting

around 10 p.m. by the then Chief Minister and was instructed to

implicate former Chief Minister and his wife on the basis of entries like

"CM Sir" and "CM Madam" despite an interim order dated 15.02.2019 by

this Hon'ble Court. On 10.05.2020, the petitioner was again called for a

meeting and was again instructed to implicate the former Chief Minister.

An unsigned Agenda containing hit list was handed over with an

instruction to proceed against them by hook or crook. As the petitioner

refused to accede to the illegal pressures, he was arbitrarily transferred

on 01.06.2020. In order to teach the petitioner a lesson, on 29.06.2021,

the first FIR No.22/2021 of Police Station, ACB/EOW was registered

7

under Section 13(1) (b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 (for short, the PC Act) on the basis of doctored/concocted

source information. Thereafter, ACB conducted raid from 01.07.2021 to

03.07.2021 in the official residence of the petitioner. During the same

period, the official residence of one Mani Bhushan, Branch Manager of

the State Bank of India, Raipur, was also simultaneously raided, from

whose scooty 2 kgs of gold bullions and some incriminating documents

from his house were recovered which are alleged to be that of the

petitioner. Charge sheet in the said FIR was filed on 08.03.2022.

8.Thereafter, a second FIR No. 0134/2021, was registered at Kotwali

Police Station, Raipur under section 124A and 153A of the Indian Penal

Code on 08.07.2021 on the basis of certain unendorsed torn pages

recovered from storm drain outside the petitioner's house during the

ACB raids in connection with FIR No. 22/2021 of PS ACB/EOW and a

similar set recovered from the house of Mani Bhushan. In the said FIR

also, charge sheet has been filed on 18.08.2021. The State, didn't Stop

here and again the third FIR No. 590/2021, at PS Supela, Durg under

Sections 388, 506 and 34 of IPC was lodged against him on 28.07.2021

for an alleged incident of 2016, on the complaint of one Kamal Kumar

Sen, an accused of Crime No. 195/2015 dated 24.04.2015 of P.S.

Mahasamund, District Mahasamund when the Petitioner was posted as

supervisory officer as I.G.P Raipur Range. Here, charge sheet dated

23.05.2022 was filed for the offences under Sections 388, 384, 506 and

34 of the I.P.C without any prosecution sanction order under Section 197

Cr.P.C.

9.On the basis of same set of facts and documents departmental charge-

sheet was issued to the petitioner under All India Services (D&A) Rules

8

1969 on 12.08.2021 and on 20.07.2023, on the basis of the same set of

facts, documents and three FIRs as a ground, the petitioner was

compulsorily retired from service by the Central Government on the

recommendation of the State/respondent. The order dated 20.07.2023

was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Central

Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, on 30.04.2024 wherein the said

order was set aside by the learned Tribunal which observed that the

petitioner has been framed in all the three FIRs because he did not toe

the illegal line of pressure from the political bosses. On 21.05.2024, on

the direction of the Home Department, ACB submitted its comments to

the reply of the petitioner to the departmental charge sheet dated

12.08.2021 wherein it has admitted that: (i) No investigation was carried

out pertaining to the properties mentioned at serial No. 7 to 17 in the FIR

22/2021 of P.S. ACB/EOW (ii). From the video-graphy conducted by

ACB of the raid proceedings at the residence of the petitioner, the facts

regarding destruction of evidence like DVR, torn pieces of documents

thrown by the petitioner etc. do not stand verified, and (iii) The torn

pieces of documents recovered from the storm drain outside the house

of the petitioner are unendorsed.

10.The State of Chhattisgarh, on 28.05.2024, forwarded a letter to the

Central Government requesting it to comply with the Tribunal's order

dated 30.04.2024 and reinstate the petitioner. The Central Government

challenged the legality of the order dated 30.04.2024 of the learned

Tribunal on 23.08.2024 by filing a petition before the Delhi High Court

wherein the order of the learned Tribunal was upheld and the petition

filed by the Central Government was dismissed.

9

11.Mr. Garg, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits

that so far as Cr.M.P. No. 2747/2023 is concerned, in order to settle

scores against him, a concocted FIR bearing Crime No. 22/2021, at PS

ACB/EOW, under Sections 13(1) (B) read with 13(2) of the PC Act,

1988 was registered against him on the basis of doctored and

manufactured source information report, in pursuance of which, on

01.07.2021 search was conducted in the official residence of the

petitioner and a simultaneous search was conducted in the official

residence of one, Mr. Mani Bhushan, a Branch Manager in SBI, Raipur.

It is a matter of record that the properties at Sl. No. 7 to 17 listed in the

said FIR (which were outcome of concocted source information) have no

relationship with the petitioner and were included only to concoct the

FIR. The ACB, in its letter dated 21.05.2024 has itself admitted that no

investigation was carried out with respect to these properties and hence

no documents are annexed with the charge sheet with respect to these

properties. In the said search when nothing substantial was recovered

from the residence of the petitioner, 2 kgs of gold bars were recovered

from the scooty of Mani Bhushan on account of the petitioner which

formed the basis of the DA case against him. Further, the DVR that

recorded the recovery of 2 kgs of gold bars from the scooty of Mani

Bhushan was seized and documents were forged in order to show a

false chain of custody of the said DVR to the Bank Guard which is

revealed from the letter dated 08.07. 2021 of DGM SBI to Director ACB.

Maliciously in order to rope the petitioner, he was not given opportunity

to file his explanation as mandated under the Act. Various documents

revealing genuine source of income of the petitioner were maliciously

suppressed in contrast to escalating expenditure by planting 2 KGs of

gold and resorting to various other malicious acts like calculating

10

expenditure on official TA on account of the petitioner. Further, the note-

sheets procured under the provisions of the RTI, shows that prosecution

sanction order dated 04.03.2022 under section 197 of Cr.P.C was

issued without approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister in contravention of

circular/Order No.1-1-2/2003/1/6, dated 26.05.2003 issued by GAD that

codifies its procedure. Various document in favour of the petitioner were

suppressed while recommending sanction under section 19 of the PC

Act to the competent authority. The charge-sheet was filed on

08.03.2022 without mandatory sanction under section 19 of the PC Act.

Further, without passing the cognizance order under section 190 Cr.P.C

as well as compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C and further, without

application of mind charges were framed.

12.According to Mr. Garg, the petitioner had duly communicated the IO on

06.01.2022 that his statements 1, 2, 3 explaining his assets were ready

and would be submitted very soon after legal vetting. With regard to this

again a representation was made before Secretary GAD vide letter

dated 18.01.2022 but an invalid prosecution sanction was granted under

Section 197 Cr.P.C. on 04.03.2022 and charge sheet was also filed

before the trial Court concerned on 08.03.2022 for the offences under

Sections 13(1)b, 13(2), 12 of the PC Act read with 120B, 201, 476, 471

of IPC without prosecution Sanction under section 19 of the PC Act. On

14.03.2022, the prosecution sanction proposal under Section 19 of the

PC Act was sent to Government of India along with DOPT check list

suppressing the information of representations dated 06.01.2022 and

18.01.2022 of the petitioner and as such, on 19.09.2022, the

prosecution sanction order under Section 19 of the PC Act was issued

against the petitioner on the basis of incomplete and suppressed

material forwarded by the respondent. In this case, charges have also

11

been framed against the petitioner on 04.08.2023 for the offences under

Sections 13(1)E, 13(2), 12 of PC Act read with 120B, 201, 476, 471 of

IPC. One of the star witness Mr. Mani Bhushan from whom alleged 2

KGs of gold is recovered was examined and in his evidence he revealed

how conspiracy was weaved to implicate the petitioner by planting gold

and documents related to sedition and forcing him to depose against the

petitioner. Not only the investigating agency made false recoveries, but

also destroyed the CCTV footage that recorded the criminal act of the

agency. On 27.03.2024, apart from the statement of star witness Mr.

Mani Bhushan, an order was passed by Income Tax department related

to proceedings in 2 KGs of gold recovered from Mr. Mani Bhushan being

alleged as that of the petitioner wherein it has been categorically stated

that the said gold does not belong to the petitioner. Even the ACB/EOW

made an admission in its reply to the Home Department vide its letter

dated 18.03.2024 stating that no investigation was carried out with

respect to properties mentioned at Sl. No. 7 to 17 in the FIR 22/2021.

Further, not a single document related to the said properties has been

annexed in the charge-sheet dated 08.03.2024 and also in respect of

section 201 IPC it is submitted that the alleged allegation do not stand

verified in the videography.

13.Mr. Garg submits that the entire action of the State/respondents suffers

from malice and is supported by the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by

the learned Tribunal and further upheld by the affirmation of the order of

the Tribunal by the Delhi High Court vide order dated 23.08.2024. The

FIR No. 21/2021 registered at Police Station, ACB/EOW, is concocted

one and the source information was doctored. The properties mentioned

from Sl. No. 7 to 17 in the list of properties does not belong to the

petitioner at all which is evident from the revenue records. The

12

properties were purchased when the petitioner was a student of Class

IX. Even the Home Department's SSP, ACB vide his letter dated

21.05.2024 has admitted that no investigation was carried out pertaining

to the said properties and as such, no documents were annexed in the

charge sheet. Even the 2 KGs of gold bars recovered from Mr. Mani

Bhushan who is the prosecution witness No. 4, was shown to be that of

the petitioner without any rhyme or reason which shows the malafide

intention of the investigating agency just to make out a case of

disproportionate assets. This aspect has also been dealt with in detail by

the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its judgment. Further, material evidence

by way of CCTV recording with respect to the recovery of 2 KGs of gold

bars from the scooty of Mr. Mani Bhushan has been suppressed by the

respondents. The respondents, in order to falsely implicate the petitioner

in a case of disproportionate assets, have inflated the percentage of

disproportionate assets and used a wrong formula and flouted the

guidelines and circulars issued for calculation of percentage of

disproportionate assets while filing charge sheet. Expenditure was

maliciously inflated, genuine income of the petitioner was maliciously

suppressed, and the petitioner has been deprived of opportunity to

explain his income/expenditure and assets/liabilities as mandated under

the law.

14.With respect to the prosecution sanction order, the procedure for grant of

prosecution sanction is codified by circular dated 26.05.2003 issued by

General Administration Department, Chhattisgarh of Chhattisgarh

according to which Hon'ble CM is the competent authority to grant the

final approval. However, notesheets related to the grant of prosecution

sanction under section 197 of Cr.P.C in the instant case were procured

by the petitioner from the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs

13

wherein it is clearly evident that there is no approval of Hon'ble Chief

Minister on the said note-sheet.

15.No charges as mentioned in the order dated 04.08.2023 framing

charges against the petitioner are made out for the offences punishable

under Section 467, 471, 13(1)(E, 13(2) and 12 of the PC Act, 201 of IPC

and 120B of IPC. The learned trial Court has not applied its mind while

framing of charges as no cognizance was taken under Section 190 of

the Cr.P.C. and the charge sheet was filed without any prosecution

sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act. The petitioner was permitted

vide order dated 19.07.2023 in WP(227) No. 223/2023 and WP(227)

No. 191/2023 to file a fresh application under Section 307 Cr.P.C. and

the learned Special Court was directed to dispose of the application in

accordance with law. The petitioner on 04.08.2023 filed the said

application but the same was not decided and charges were framed

without complying with the mandate of Section 207 Cr.P.C.

16.With respect to Cr.M.P. No. 1488/2023, Mr. Garg submits that the third

FIR being Crime No. 590/2021 was registered at Police Station, Supela,

District Durg, under Sections 388, 506 read with 34 of IPC on

27.07.2021 bearing "0" number on the complaint of one Mr. Kamal Sen

after an unexplained delay of more than 6 years, wherein it has been

alleged that the petitioner while posted as IGP, Raipur Range had given

assurance to complainant's wife through some middleman that he would

not let the challan to be filed in 60 days in FIR No. 195/15, dated

23.04.2015 so that he can be entitled for default bail. The complainant

Kamal Sen is an accused in FIR No. 195/15 of P.S. Mahasamund under

Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120B of IPC registered on 23.04.2015

wherein it has been alleged that the tanker CG 04 HQ 4745 which was

14

carrying 28000 litre of furnace oil was changed and kept in Shubam

Organic Industrial area Birkoni, Mahasamund and substituted by inferior

quality of Furnace oil. Just after the arrest of the complainant Kamal

Sen on 25.06.2016, the petitioner was transferred to Police

Headquarters, Raipur on 11.07.2016 Therefore, there was no occasion

to give such assurance to the complainant because the petitioner was no

more the supervisory officer for exercising any authority over the

concerned Police Station. Further, it is a matter of record that accused

Kamal Sen who is complainant of FIR No. 590/21, P.S. Supela, Durg

was released on bail by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 13.02.2017

in MCRC No, 260/2017 only after depositing amount of Rs.8,16,299/- in

the competent court. The said FIR is completely silent on aspect as to

whether the complainant or anyone met petitioner to substantiate the

aforesaid allegations.

17.It is argued by Mr. Garg that Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. stipulates that in

case any offence is connected with the official duty of the Government

servant then prior sanction of the competent authority is mandatory. In

the instant case charge sheet was filed on 27.05.2022 in the concerned

court and as the charge sheet did not contain the sanction order,

therefore the petitioner moved an application dated 05.12.2022 the

provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, the RTI)

before the Ministry of Law and Legislative affairs, Government of

Chhattisgarh to get the prosecution sanction order. Vide letter dated

29.12.2022, the Department informed the petitioner that it had not

received any such proposal regarding prosecution sanction from the

investigating agency. Further, the said Department directed the

concerned District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police to

furnish the desired information to the petitioner. In response to the said

15

communication, SHO PS Supela informed vide letter dated 28.12.2022

that in compliance of provisions of Section 197 of Cr.P.C, the

proceedings related to prosecution sanction in the instant case were

kept aside. Therefore, it is revealed from the said letter, that the SHO

instead of forwarding the file related to prosecution to the competent

authority, himself decided not to proceed with it. As per the procedure

codified by General Administration Department (GAD) vide Order No. F-

1-2/2003/1/6, dated 26.05.2003 with regard to the cases of prosecution

sanction of Government Servants, the Department of Law and

Legislative Affairs is the competent authority to decide on it. Therefore,

in the instant case, decision regarding the requirement of sanction taken

by SHO PS Supela, Durg, is contrary to the Circular No. F1-2/2003/1/6,

dated 26.05.2003 issued by GAD wherein it has been specifically

mentioned that in respect of prosecution sanction under Section 197

Cr.P.C the competent authority is the Law and Legislative Department in

co-ordiation with the Administrative Department of Government of

Chhattisgarh. It is settled position of law that a government servant,

accused of an offence, which is alleged to have been committed by him

while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty, the

previous sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C of the competent

authority is necessary. The alleged illegal act in the FIR has direct

connection with the official duty of the petitioner and hence, the

cognizance could not have been taken without proper prosecution

sanction issued by the competent authority. The cognizance taken by

the learned trial Court is contrary to settled principles of law. Therefore,

this Hon'ble Court is well within the power to quash the proceedings for

want of prosecution sanction, where the act committed has direct

connection with the official duty.

16

18.It is further submitted by Mr. Garg that no offence is made out under

Sections 388, 384, 506 of IPC. By no stretch of imagination the

ingredients of the offence under Sections 388, 384, 506 of IPC are made

out in the light of various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Courts of the

country. In the instant case, no where it has been mentioned that the

petitioner had put the complainant in fear of any injury or forced him to

deliver any property Further, the complainant filed a CrMP No.

614/2021, dated 18.06.21 before this Hon'ble Court, for quashing of his

charges and has further recorded his statement under section 313 of

Cr.P.C in FIR No. 195/2015 of PS Mahasamund on 25.03.2023 before

the concerned trial court. Strangely, on no occasion as mentioned

above, he has revealed the story mentioned in the instant FIR No.

590/21 of being falsely implicated in FIR No. 195/15 of PS Kotwali,

District. Mahasamund. Further, there is unexplained delay of six years

without there being any explanation. If there are abnormal delay/latches

in initiating criminal prosecution of more than 3 months in reporting the

matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay, the proper

course to be adopted by the police authorities is to register a preliminary

inquiry and to inquire about the delay in lodging the FIR. However, in the

instant case the same has not been followed. Furthermore, there is

malice on the part of the State which is well recognized by the order

passed by the learned Tribunal as well as Delhi High Court.

19.With respect to Cr.M.P. No. 683/2024, Mr. Garg submits that in

pursuance of the FIR No. 22/2021, a search was conducted on

01.07.2021 in the official residence of the petitioner and Mr. Mani

Bhushan. When nothing substantial was recovered from the residence of

the petitioner, allegedly torn pieces of documents were recovered from a

storm drain situated outside the official residence of the petitioner and on

17

rearranging it was found to be seditious in nature. Further, 2 kgs of gold

bars were recovered from the scooty of Mani Bhushan and an orange

envelope containing 10 pages allegedly seditious in nature were

recovered from him. As per the prosecution story the alleged seditious

contents of these 10 pages recovered from Mani Bhushan matched with

that of the torn pages recovered from the storm drain outside the house

of the petitioner. Therefore, on the basis of recovery of the said alleged

seditious material in connection with the search proceedings connected

with FIR No. 22/2021 of ACB, another FIR No. 0134/2021 was culled on

08.07.2021 at Kotwali Police Station, Raipur under Section 124(a) and

153(a) of the IPC against the petitioner. The said alleged documents

which are said to be recovered from the storm drain were never

produced before the concerned Trial court along with the charge sheet

dated 18.08.2021 and without such document, the cognizance has been

taken by the learned Magistrate. Mr. Mani Bhushan in his evidence

dated 05.01.2024 related to FIR No. 22/2021 has deposed that no such

orange envelope was recovered from him and the alleged signatures on

the 10 pages also do not belong to him.

20.It is next submitted that the admissions have been made by the ACB in

the departmental proceedings regarding non availability of evidence. On

the same set of evidence/documents collected by ACB in FIR No.

22/2021, Departmental proceedings dated 12.08.2021 with identical

charges were initiated against the petitioner. As per the charge No. 2

and 3 of the Departmental charge-sheet, it has been alleged that

petitioner opened the door of his official residence after a delay of 45

minutes and during this intervening period, material evidence/documents

have been destroyed and the same was thrown outside the residence of

the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the Departmental

18

charge-sheet vide letter dated 16.02.2024 and 26.02.2024. In view of

the reply submitted by the petitioner, the Home Department vide its letter

dated 18 03.2024 sought detailed comments from ACB/EOW. The SSP

ACB/EOW, vide its letter dated 21.05.2024 submitted its reply to the

Home Department in which it has admitted that: (i) From the

videography conducted by the ACB of the raid proceedings at the

residence of the petitioner, the facts regarding destruction of evidence

like torn pieces of documents thrown by the petitioner etc. do not stand

verified. (ii) The torn pieces of documents recovered from the storm

drain outside the house of the petitioner are unendorsed. Therefore, the

entire story of prosecution of delay of 45 minutes in opening the gate and

spotting the petitioner throwing the torn pieces of alleged seditious

material is false and reflects that the said torn pieces were planted by

the search team itself and again this fact is corroborated by the evidence

of Mr. Mani Bhushan which was recorded in Trial No. 1/2022 before the

learned Special Judge (ACB), Raipur, wherein he exposed the malafide

and arbitrary conduct of the agency to rope the present petitioner in false

case. The alleged recovery of torn pieces on the basis of which

impugned FIR was registered and cognizance was taken by the

concerned Magistrate after filing of charge sheet, were never produced

before the competent court and without original documents criminal

prosecution has been launched against the petitioner. This fact was

revealed when the petitioner moved an application on 03.05.2024 before

the JMFC Raipur for obtaining certified copy of the torn pieces which

was rejected by the concerned court on the ground that original record is

not annexed with the charge sheet. Therefore, certified copy of

photocopy cannot be supplied as per rules. It is next submitted that the

contents of the charge sheet do not constitute ingredients under

19

Sections 124A, 153A and 505(2) of IPC: From the contents of the entire

charge-sheet, the ingredients which constitute the offence under section

124A, 153A and 505(2) of IPC are missing. Further, even if we assume

the prosecution's mischievous interpretation to be true, though not

conceded, in view of settled principles of law by no stretch of

imagination, the alleged documents fulfill the ingredients which are

necessary for making out offence under Section 124A, 153A and 505(2)

of IPC. The prosecution sanction is also invalid as stated in the

preceding paragraphs. In addition to the above, malafide is also one of

the grounds seeking quashing of the FIR and the criminal proceedings

emanating therefrom.

21.In support of his contentions, reliance has been placed by Mr. Garg on

the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in case of Kedar Nath Singh

vs. State of Bihar {AIR 1962 SC 955, Para 15 & 24 to 29}, State of

Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, {1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Para 102}, Bilal

Ahmed Kaloo V. State of A.P. {(1997) 7 SCC 431, Para 10, 11, 12 15

& 24}, Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, {(2009) 8 SCC 751, Para 10

to 13, 16 & 17}, Radheyshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal

and Anr., {(2011) 3 SCC 581, Para 26, 29, 38(vi) & 39}, Isaac Isanga

Musumba and others v. State of Maharashtra, {(2014) 15 SCC 357,

Para 3 & 7}, D.T. Virupakshappa v. C. Subash, {(2015) 12 SCC 231,

Para 7 & 8}, D. Devaraja v Owais Sabeer Hussain, {(2020) 7 SCC

695, Para 68, 69, 72, 73 & 74}, Ahmad Ali Quaraishi v. State of U.P.

{(2020) 13 SCC 435, Para 13 to 19}, Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of

T.N.,{(2022) 15 SCC 164, Para 23 to 27}, Shri Sukhbir Singh Badal

vs. Balwant Singh Khera and Ors. {2023 SCC OnLine SC 522, Para

43 & 44 to 47}, Pushpendra Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand,

{(2023) 11 SCC 636, Para 27}, Mahmood Ali and other v. State of

20

U.P. {2023 SCC Online SC 950, Para 11, 13, 14 & 15}, the order dated

30.04.2024 passed by the learned Tribunal, New Delhi Bench in OA No.

2440/2024 {paragraphs 24 to 30} and the judgment dated 23.08.2024

passed in WP(C) No. 10703/2024 by Delhi High Court {Para 37, 38 &

39}. Mr. Garg would lastly submit that in view of the aforesaid

submissions and pleadings, all the three FIRs, charge sheet, order

framing of charge and the consequential criminal proceedings may be

quashed, and all the reliefs as sought for in these three petitions may

kindly be awarded to the petitioner.

22.On the other hand, Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, learned Government Advocate

appearing for the State/respondents {in Cr.M.P. No. 1488/2023} submits

that the on 27.07.2021 a written complaint was received at Police

Chowki Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, against the petitioner upon allegations of

extortion from the complainant/respondent No.5. The said complaint was

registered by the Police Chowki, Smriti Nagar on 27.07.2021 bearing

Crime No. 0/2021 and the same was transferred to the jurisdictional

Police Station, Supela District Durg on 28/07/2021. It was accordingly

on 28.07.2021 that, an FIR was registered against the petitioner bearing

Crime No. 590/2021 for commission of the alleged offences punishable

under sections 388, 506 read with section 34 of IPC. The investigation is

being conducted in the said crime and in the process various statements

have been recorded both of the complainant as well as that of witnesses.

Statements have also been recorded before the competent Judicial

Magistrate and the same is also part of the Case Diary. Upon recording

of statements, it transpired that the ingredients for commission of offence

under section 384 of the IPC are also present accordingly Section 384 of

the IPC was also added to the alleged offences for which investigation is

being carried out, on 13.09.2021. There is a clear consistent statement

21

by the complainant, his wife and the other witnesses for having paid a

sum of Rs. 20 Lakhs to the petitioner. There is a money trail as to how

the amount was arranged, which prima facie at this stage of

investigation supports the allegations leveled in the FIR against the

petitioner. A bare perusal of the complaint would clearly demonstrate

that there are ingredients in the said complaint, which makes out a

cognizable offence against the petitioner and it is on account of the said

fact that an FIR has been registered strictly in accordance with law. The

petitioner has made all sort of misconceived and frivolous allegations,

which at best can be said to be the defence of the petitioner, but then the

said defence on part of the petitioner cannot be looked into by the

Hon'ble Court at the time of proceeding/investigation. The investigation

in a criminal offence after registration is the prerogative of the

investigating agency as to the manner and the mode in which the same

is to be conducted. It is trite law that the accused does not have a right

to interfere investigation done by the police and mode in which it is to be

conducted.

23.Mr. Akhilesh further submits that after registration of the FIR the police

recorded the statement of the complainant and other witnesses under

Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and after due investigation prima facie

cognizable offence is made out against the present petitioners and

accordingly the Final Report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure has been filed before the Court of Learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Durg, vide Challan No. 334/2022 dated 23.05.2022 for the

offence punishable under sections 388, 384, 506, 34 of IPC against the

petitioner. In the instant case the Ingredient of aforesaid offences are

made out against the petitioner. Reliance is placed on the judgment of

the the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Criminal Appeal Nos. 1025-1026

22

of 2023 (@SLP (CRL.) Nos.12794- 12795 of 2022), Central Bureau of

Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh Etc. and State of Haryana v.

Bhajanlal {(AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604}, M/s. Neeharika

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra {AIR 2021 SC

1918},State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani & Others

{reported in (2017)2 SCC 779} and accordingly prays for dismissal of

the petition.

24.So far as Cr.M.P. No. 2747/2023 is concerned, Mr. Akhilesh Kumar

submits that the petitioner has preferred the instant petition seeking

indulgence of this Hon'ble Court invoking the inherent jurisdiction under

section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Unfortunately the petitioner has preferred the

instant petition with sheer malafide intent to protract and delay the trial

itself on the incorrect submission that the State/respondent have not

complied with the statutory compliance under Section 207 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. The entire efforts on the part of the petitioner in

preferring the instant petition is to prolong, defer and protract the

criminal trial in Special Criminal Case No. 01/2022 which is pending

before the Learned Special Judge, Raipur. Charge sheet against the

petitioner was submitted on 08.03.2022 and the sanction for prosecution

was received from the Central Government on 19.09.2022. The charge

sheet having been filed on 08.03.2022, a complete copy of the same

was duly supplied to the petitioner to which the petitioner did not raised

any objection and accepted the same without any demur and objection.

There was no objection raised by the petitioner alleging non compliance

of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. at any point of time until the matter was

fixed for framing of the charges. All during this while, the petitioner was

satisfied with the supply of the charge sheet and the documents received

in compliance of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. This petition is a sequel of

23

proceedings which culminated by the conclusive order passed by this

Hon'ble Court vide order dated 19.07.2023 passed in WP(227) No.

191/2023 and WP (227) No. 223/2023. All the objections raised by the

petitioner were duly considered and addressed by the Hon'ble Court and

the claim raised by the petitioner were finally settled. The petitioner has

again preferred the application under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. to defer

the proceedings of Trial and the framing of the charges. It was with the

said intent that a fresh application under section 207 of the Cr.P.C. was

preferred by the petitioner before the Learned Special Court on

04.08.2023 requesting for deferment of framing of charges. Charges

were framed on 04.08.2023 against the petitioner and the matter was

proceeded for recording of evidence of the witnesses vide order dated

04.08.2023. The charges have already been framed against the

petitioner vide order dated 04.08.2023 and the same has attained finality

as the petitioner did not prefer any challenge to the framing of the said

charges. Furthermore, the trial has also commenced and the number of

witnesses have already been examined and cross-examined. The

petitioner is already in possession of the entire copy of the charge sheet

and there is neither any prejudice caused to the petitioner since he had

already argued on charge before the learned trial Court based on the

charge sheet available with him as well as based on the charge sheet

filed in Court and further that strict compliance of Section 207 of the

Cr.P.C. has already been made by the prosecution. In light of the fact

that the trial has already commenced and the petitioner has participated

in the trial, the instant petition having been preferred with a malafide

intent to protract the trial may kindly be rejected, in the interest of justice.

The petitioner had already preferred a petition assailing the order dated

04.08.2023 before this Hon'ble Court bearing Cr.M.P. No. 1895/2023,

24

and the same is pending adjudication before this Hon'ble Court wherein

the State/respondents had filed an application for raising preliminary

objection seeking disposal of the said case and therefore the second

petition on the same cause is not maintainable on the principle of res

judicata and therefore the same deserves to be dismissed on this

ground alone.

25.So far as Cr.M.P. No. 683/2024 is concerned, Mr. Akhilesh Kumar,

learned Government Advocate appearing for the State submits that FIR

was registered against the petitioner on the basis of a written complaint

made by the complainant Mohsin Khan, Incharge Police Station Kotwali,

Raipur. After registration of FIR, the investigating agency conducted

investigation in the matter and filed charge sheet before the court below

alongwith material evidences and documents, which prima-facie

establish the commission of alleged offence by the petitioner. Section

154 of Cr.P.C. suggests that the information regarding commission of

cognizable offence shall be reduced into writing by the Officer-in-Charge

of the Police Station, therefore, upon receiving the information by the

concerned Station House Officer of Police Station City Kotwali, District

Raipur (CG) the FIR was registered about an incident which constitute a

cognizable offence. It hardly gives any discretion to the said police

officer. The twofold obligation upon such officer is that: (a) he should

receive such information, and (b) record the same as prescribed. The

language of Section 154 Cr.P.C imposes such imperative obligation

upon the officer. The genesis of this provision in our country in this

regard is that the officer-in- charge must register the FIR and proceed

with the investigation forthwith. After registration of offence, the

investigating agency conducted investigation in the matter and filed

charge sheet before the learned Trial Court. Before filing charge sheet

25

against the petitioner, the respondent authorities made proposal before

the Law and Legislative Affairs Department, Government of Chhattisgarh

alongwith evidences and documents, wherein, after going through with

the evidences, the Law and Legislative Affairs Department, Government

of Chhattisgarh accorded sanction for prosecution against the petitioner

in exercise with the provisions of section 196(1) of the Cr.P.C. vide order

dated 18.08.2021. In a catena of decisions, it has been upheld by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court that the investigation cannot be preempted by

the court of law, which would amount interference in the investigating

power vested with the police authorities. So far as the question of

malafide exercise of power is concerned, it is settled principles of law

that the question of malafide exercise of powers can only be determined

after the charge sheet is filed. In the case in hand, the matter is under

investigation, therefore, the allegation of malafide exercise of power,

cannot be considered at this stage. Subsequent to filing of final report

/charge sheet, the learned Trial Court, after appreciating the evidences

and records, taken cognizance in the matter accepted the same and

framed the charges against the petitioner for commission of offence

punishable section 124(A) and 153(A) of IPC. Thereafter, further

proceeding has been initiated by the learned Trial Court, which is

pending adjudication before the learned Trial Court. Since the charge

sheet has been filed and the criminal case has been registered by

learned Trial Court being Criminal Case No. 6952/2021 dated

23.08.2021 and now the trial would be conducted by the Trial Court,

therefore, at this stage, the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious

remedy to adduce evidences in order to prove their innocence, therefore,

in view of the aforesaid remedy available to the petitioner the instant

petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Reliance is

26

placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa & Ors.

v. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan {2012 4 SCC 547}, Madhavrao Jiwajirao

Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre {(1988) 1 SCC 692}.

26.Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5/

complainant {in Cr.M.P. No. 1488/2023} submits that the respondent/

Complainant made a complaint before the Police Station Supela, District

Durg against the petitioner and other accused person and on the basis

of same, an FIR under aforesaid Sections of the IPC has been

registered against the present petitioner and other accused person, as

prima facie, the respondent-Police authorities are obliged to register an

FIR as per law and there is no infirmity or illegality in the same and the

same is strictly in accordance with law. After registration of the FIR, the

matter has duly been investigated and after due investigation in the

matter, the charge sheet has been filed by the concerned Police Station

against the accused persons before the Competent Court of law. The

Police has registered FIR on the basis of the written complaint made by

the respondent/complainant against the petitioner and other accused

person on disclosing commission of cognizable offence committed by

them. The scope of interference of the Hon'ble High Court under Section

482 of the Cr.M.P. is limited and in the catena of judgment, the Hon'ble

Apex Court has held that, if the FIR prima facie discloses the

commission of offence, the Hon'ble Court should be reluctant to interfere

for quashing the FIR at the stage of investigation. It is further held that,

the legal position is well settled that, if an offence is disclosed, the Court

will not normally interfere with an investigation into the case and will

permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed and if the

FIR, prima facie, discloses the commission of an offence, the Court does

not normally stop the investigation, for, to do so would be to trench upon

27

the lawful power of the Police to investigate into cognizable offence,

therefore, at this early stage, the relief of quashment of FIR cannot be

granted to the petitioner. The quashment of FIR or framing of charges is

an extra ordinary jurisdiction and inherent jurisdiction of the Hon'ble

Court can be exercised only in a case where; (i) to give effect to any

order under this Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court

or, (iii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court has recently reiterated the said preposition of law in matter of

Amish Devgan Vs. Union of India & Others, {2020 SCC Online SC

994}. After due investigation in the matter by the Investigating Agency,

the charge sheet has duly been filed against the accused persons

including the present petitioner before the Competent Court below and

the trial has also been commenced and if the petitioner is aggrieved by

the same, then the petitioner has right to challenge the same by filing a

suitable revision against such proceeding of framing of charges. Thus,

the instant petition is highly belated as the trial is already commenced,

hence, the present petition is not maintainable on the ground of delay as

well as alternate remedy available to the petitioner. Further, the

petitioner can very well take their defense before the Trial Court proving

his innocence. Hence, he prays for dismissal of these petitions.

27.We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings

and documents appended thereto.

28.This court, while hearing these petitions, had granted interim order to the

effect that further criminal proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to

the impugned FIR shall remain stayed vide order dated 01.05.2024 in

Cr.M.P. No. 1488/2023 and vide order dated 10.05.2024 in Cr.M.P. No.

28

683/2024. However, there was no stay order in respect of Cr.M.P. No.

2747/2023..

29.To cut short the issue involved in these petitions, the gist of the three

petitions is that three FIRs have been registered against the petitioner

and that too, only after coming of the another political party into power on

17.12.2018. The first FIR was registered on 29.06.2021 for the offence

under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The

second FIR being No. 0134/2021 was registered at Kotwali P olice

Station, Raipur, under Section 124(a) and 153(a) of the IPC on the basis

of alleged recovery of torn pages from the storm drain allegedly

containing seditious content. The third FIR was lodged on 28.07.2021 on

a complaint made by one Kamal Kumar Sen under Sections 388, 506

and 34 of the IPC after a lapse of about 6 years alleging that the

petitioner would help him in getting out on default bail by not letting the

IO of that case to file the charge sheet within time.

30.On 12.08.2021, departmental charge sheet was issued on the same set

of facts and documents which form the basis of charges in criminal

cases. No enquiry officer could be appointed till date even after passage

of more than three years. When the departmental enquiry could not be

taken to its logical conclusion, with an ulterior motive, in order to inflict

punishment, the petitioner was compulsorily retired vide order dated

30.07.2023. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the

learned Tribunal which has been allowed and the order of compulsory

retirement has been set aside. The observations made by the learned

Tribunal is reproduced below:

“45. In the facts and circumstances enumerated above, we are

of the opinion that the applicant, has been retired compulsorily

as a punitive measure. We also find that the order of

29

compulsory retirement has been passed as a shortcut to avoid

the departmental inquiry. The impugned order, retiring the

applicant compulsorily, cannot be sustained in the eyes of

law.”

31.From the above, it appears that the State could not establish its case

even before the Tribunal as it had no concrete material to support its

allegations against the petitioner. The State Government, vide letter

dated 28.05.2024 addressed to the Central Government recommended

for reinstatement of the petitioner in compliance of the order of the

Tribunal. Instead of complying with the order of the Tribunal, the Central

Government challenged the same before the Delhi High Court but the

same was dismissed vide judgment dated 23.08.2024. It would be

beneficial to quote the relevant part of the said order which reads as

under:

“37. It is also worth to note here that three other IPS officers

against whom inquiries were initiated along with respondent

No.1, their names were dropped for one reason or the other

but respondent No.1 has been roped in for the offences which

do not even stand substantiated.

38. This Court now proceeds to examine other FIRs registered

against respondent No.1.

I. On 29.06.2021, Anti-Corruption Bureau / EOW got

registered FIR No.22/2021, under Section 13 (1) (b)

read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 against respondent No.1 for

allegedly owning disproportionate assets, pursuant to

raids conducted at the residence of said respondent

for recovery of 2Kg of gold bullions in aid of Mani

Bhushan, a SBI Officer, who was not even made an

accused despite being a Government Servant. In

respect of this recovery, proceedings under Section

143 (2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 were also initiated.

Relevantly, in response to his summons dated

03.01.2024, Mani Bhushan vide his reply dated

16.01.2024, stated as under:-

“In reference to the above cited notice I beg to

state that I was served a notice to appear on

10.01.2024 related to my deposition on

30

15.11.2021 in Income tax office Raipur with

regard to recovery of 2 kgs of gold bullions from

my scooty parked in SBI colony in Shankar

Nagar, Raipur. In reply to the above notice I

attached my truthful deposition during cross

examination dated 05.01.2024 before the Ld

ADJ-1, District Court, Raipur wherein I have

clearly stated, how I was threatened with

implication in false FIRs and subjected to both

physical and mental torture to be a forced

witness to implicate G P Singh in a false case.

The above torture was not only limited to myself

but extended to my whole family. It will be

pertinent to mention that as my scooty where

the said gold bullions were planted was parked

in an area which was covered by CCTV

surveillance, the act of planting these gold

bullions was captured in the said DVR of the

CCTV system installed in said colony. ACB

officials on knowing that their act has been

captured in the CCTV footage forcibly took away

the said DVR from the bank guard without giving

any receipt of seizure. As per my understanding,

subsequently on insistence by the bank guard to

give a receipt of the above seizure, the ACB

officials made a trail of fabricated documents to

show that the said DVR along with the hard disk

was returned to the bank guard. The

administrative office of SBI on knowing these

facts shot a letter to the Director ACB to furnish

the receipt of the hard disk that was

surreptitiously taken away the ACB officers and

not returned. This hard disk is crucial and sure

shot evidence that will unfurl truth of recovery of

this 2 kgs of gold bullions from my scooty. In

fact I am also victim of this entire criminal

conspiracy of the officials of ACB/EOW

Chhattisgarh.

Relevantly, pursuant to aforesaid statement made by Mani

Bhushan and verification of the allegations, proceedings

against the respondent No. 1 were closed.

II. With regard to FIR bearing No.134/2021, registered

on 08.07.2021 under Sections 124A, 153A, 505(2) of

the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 on the ground of

seditious material; pursuant to statement of Mani

Bhushan and his cross- examination it revealed that

there was no recovery of seditious material from

31

respondent No.1. The Tribunal thus held that this FIR

was registered against respondent No.1 at the behest

of higher authorities of the State Government as he did

not toe the line of pressure.

III. In respect of FIR bearing No.590/2021, registered

on 28.07.2021 under Sections 384, 388 and 506 read

with Section 34 of IPC, 1860 on an incident, the

Tribunal observed that the Zero FIR was registered

after the alleged incident had taken place six years

ago and there is no explanation for delay in registration

of the FIR.

39. It is relevant to note here that proceedings in all the above

three FIRs were stayed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh and

without waiting for the outcome, order compulsory retiring

respondent No.1 has been passed by the petitioner as a short

cut method without even waiting for conclusion of departmental

proceedings. Accordingly, the Tribunal has rightly observed

that the competent criminal court can decide the criminal case

independently on its own merit and by observing so, has

refrained itself from making observations on the merits of the

FIRs.

40. What is clinching is that despite delay of three years, even

Enquiry Officer was not appointed in the department

proceedings and the learned Tribunal has taken serious note

of this fact in the impugned judgment, which in our opinion is

just and proper in the facts of the present case. The petitioners

have not been able to show anything adverse in the service

record of respondent No.1. The filing of various FIRs, are

premised upon alleged recovery made from Mani Bhushan

pursuant to raids conducted at his premises. In light of the

statement of Mani Bhushan, a SBI Officer, the allegation

against respondent No.1 do not appear to be such strong to

direct compulsory retirement of respondent No.1.

41. Having noted above the totality of facts of the present

case, we are of the opinion that the impugned order dated

30.04.2024 passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from no

infirmity and thus, the present petition and pending

applications are dismissed.”

32.The Supreme Court, in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo (supra), observed as

under:

“10. Section 153A was amended by the Criminal and Election

Laws (Amendment) Act 1969 (Act No. 35 of 1969). It consists of

three clauses of which clauses (a) and (b) alone are material

32

now. By the same amending Act sub-section (2) was added to

Section 505 of the Indian Penal Code. Clauses (a) & (b) of

Section 153A and Section 505(2) are extracted below:

153-A. Promoting enmity between different groups on

grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence,

language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of

harmony.- (1) Whoever -

(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by

visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to

promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth,

residence, language, caste or community or any other

ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred

or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or

regional groups or castes or communities, or

(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance

of harmony between different religious, racial, language or

regional groups or castes or communities, and which

disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, or

(c) * * *

shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to

three years, or with fine, or with both."

* * *

505(2) Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or

ill- will between classes.- Whoever makes, publishes or

circulates any statement or report containing rumour or

alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is

likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race,

place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or

any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or

ill-will between different religious, racial, language or

regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished

with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with

fine, or with both."

The common ingredient in both the offences is promoting

feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious or

racial or linguistic or regional groups or castes or communities.

Section 153A covers a case where a person by "words, either

spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations"

promotes or attempts to promote such feeling. Under Section

505(2), promotion of such feeling should have been done by

making and publishing or circulating any statement or report

containing rumour or alarming news.

33

11.This Court has held in Balwant Singh vs. State of Punjab

(1995 3 SCC 214) that mens rea is a necessary ingredient for the

offence under Section 153A. Mens rea is an equally necessary

postulate for the offence under Section 505(2) also as could be

discerned from the words "with intent to create or promote or

which is likely to create or promote" as used in that sub-section.

12. The main distinction between the two offences is that while

publication of the words or representation is not necessary under

the former, such publication is sine qua non under Section 505.

The words "whoever makes, publishes or circulates" used in the

setting of Section 505(2) cannot be interpreted disjunctively but

only as supplementary to each other. If it is construed

disjunctively, any one who makes a statement falling within the

meaning of Section 505 would, without publication or circulation,

be liable to conviction. But the same is the effect with Section

153A also and then that Section would have been bad for

redundancy. The intention of the legislature in providing two

different sections on the same subject would have been to cover

two different fields of similar colour. The fact that both sections

were included as a package in the same amending enactment

lends further support to the said construction.

* * *

15. The common feature in both sections being promotion of

feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will "between different" religious or

racial or linguistic or regional groups or castes and communities it

is necessary that at least two such groups or communities should

be involved. Merely inciting the felling of one community or group

without any reference to any other community or group cannot

attract either of the two sections.

* * *

24.Before parting with this judgment, we wish to observe that

the manner in which convictions have been recorded for offences

under Section 153A, 124A and 505(2), has exhibited a very

casual approach of the trial court. Let alone the absence of any

evidence which may attract the provisions of the sections, as

already observed, even the charges framed against the appellant

for these offences did not contain the essential ingredients of the

offences under the three sections. The appellant strictly speaking

should not have been put to trial for those offences. Mechanical

order convicting a citizen for offences of such serious nature like

sedition and to promote enmity and hatred etc. does harm to the

cause. It is expected that graver the offence, greater should be

the care taken so that the liberty of a citizen is not lightly interfered

with.”

34

33.With regard to grant of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., in

D.T.Virupakshappa (supra), the Supreme Court observed as under:

“7. The issue of ‘police excess’ during investigation and

requirement of sanction for prosecution in that regard, was also

the subject matter of State of Orissa Through Kumar Raghvendra

Singh and others v. Ganesh Chandra Jew {(2004) 8 SCC 40,

wherein, at paragraph-7, it has been held as follows (SCC pp. 46-

47:

“7. The protection given under Section 197 is to protect

responsible public servants against the institution of possibly

vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have

been committed by them while they are acting or purporting

to act as public servants. The policy of the legislature is to

afford adequate protection to public servants to ensure that

they are not prosecuted for anything done by them in the

discharge of their official duties without reasonable cause,

and if sanction is granted, to confer on the Government, if

they choose to exercise it, complete control of the

prosecution. This protection has certain limits and is

available only when the alleged act done by the public

servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his

official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the

objectionable act. If in doing his official duty, he acted in

excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable connection

between the act and the performance of the official duty, the

excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public

servant of the protection. The question is not as to the nature

of the offence such as whether the alleged offence contained

an element necessarily dependent upon the offender being a

public servant, but whether it was committed by a public

servant acting or purporting to act as such in the discharge

of his official capacity. Before Section 197 can be invoked, it

must be shown that the official concerned was accused of an

offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting

or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. It is

not the duty which requires examination so much as the act,

because the official act can be performed both in the

discharge of the official duty as well as in dereliction of it.

The act must fall within the scope and range of the official

duties of the public servant concerned. It is the quality of the

act which is important and the protection of this section is

available if the act falls within the scope and range of his

official duty. …” (Emphasis supplied) I

8. In Om Prakash {(2012) 12 SCC 72}, this Court, after referring to

various decisions, particularly pertaining to the police excess,

35

summed-up the guidelines at paragraph-32, which reads as

follows: (SCC p. 89)

“32. The true test as to whether a public servant was acting

or purporting to act in discharge of his duties would be

whether the act complained of was directly connected with

his official duties or it was done in the discharge of his official

duties or it was so integrally connected with or attached to

his office as to be inseparable from it (K. Satwant Singh).

The protection given under Section 197 of the Code has

certain limits and is available only when the alleged act done

by the public servant is reasonably connected with the

discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for

doing the objectionable act. If in doing his official duty, he

acted in excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable

connection between the act and the performance of the

official duty, the excess will not be a sufficient ground to

deprive the public servant of the protection (Ganesh

Chandra Jew). If the above tests are applied to the facts of

the present case, the police must get protection given under

Section 197 of the Code because the acts complained of are

so integrally connected with or attached to their office as to

be inseparable from it. It is not possible for us to come to a

conclusion that the protection granted under Section 197 of

the Code is used by the police personnel in this case as a

cloak for killing the deceased in cold blood.”

34.In a yet another judgment, the Supreme Court with regard to the

aforesaid issue observed in D. Devaraja (supra), as under:

“68. If in doing an official duty a policeman has acted in

excess of duty, but there is a reasonable connection between

the act and the performance of the official duty, the fact that

the act alleged is in excess of duty will not be ground enough

to deprive the policeman of the protection of government

sanction for initiation of criminal action against him.

69. The language and tenor of Section 197 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police

Act makes it absolutely clear that sanction is required not

only for acts done in discharge of official duty, it is also

required for an act purported to be done in discharge of

official duty and/or act done under colour of or in excess of

such duty or authority.

* * *

72. On the question of the stage at which the Trial Court has

to examine whether sanction has been obtained and if not

36

whether the criminal proceedings should be nipped in the

bud, there are diverse decisions of this Court.

73. While this Court has, in D.T. Virupakshappa held that the

High Court had erred in not setting aside an order of the Trial

Court taking cognizance of a complaint, in exercise of the

power under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, in

Matajog Dobey (supra) this Court held it is not always

necessary that the need for sanction under Section 197 is to

be considered as soon as the complaint is lodged and on the

allegations contained therein. The complainant may not

disclose that the act constituting the offence was done or

purported to be done in the discharge of official duty and/or

under colour of duty. However the facts subsequently coming

to light in course of the trial or upon police or judicial enquiry

may establish the necessity for sanction. Thus, whether

sanction is necessary or not may have to be determined at

any stage of the proceedings.

74. It is well settled that an application under Section 482 of

the Criminal Procedure Code is maintainable to quash

proceedings which are ex facie bad for want of sanction,

frivolous or in abuse of process of court. If, on the face of the

complaint, the act alleged appears to have a reasonable

relationship with official duty, where the criminal proceeding

is apparently prompted by mala fides and instituted with

ulterior motive, power under Section 482 of the Criminal

Procedure Code would have to be exercised to quash the

proceedings, to prevent abuse of process of court.”

35.In Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra), the Supreme Court held as under:

“38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions

can broadly be stated as follows :-

(i) Adjudication proceeding and criminal prosecution can be

launched simultaneously;

(ii)Decision in adjudication proceeding is not necessary

before initiating criminal prosecution;

(iii)Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are

independent in nature to each other;

(iv)The finding against the person facing prosecution in the

adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for

criminal prosecution;

(v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate

is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the

37

provisions of Article 20 (2) of the Constitution or Section 300

of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

(vi)The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of the

person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the

nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication

proceedings is on technical ground and not on merit,

prosecution may continue; and

(vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the

allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and person

held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts

and circumstances can not be allowed to continue, underlying

principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases.”

36.One of the allegation against the petitioner is that he extorted the

complainant for making his release on bail convenient. On the issue of

extortion, the Supreme Court has observed in Isaac Isanga Musumba

& Others (supra), that unless property is delivered to the accused

person pursuant to the threat, no offence of extortion is made out and an

FIR for the offence under Section 384 could not have been registered by

the police.

37.In the present case, the FIR relating to extortion registered against the

petitioner was lodged with a delay of six years and in this regard, the

Supreme Court, in Hasmukhlal D. Vora (supra), observed as under:

“23. In the present case, the respondent has provided no

explanation for the extraordinary delay of more than four years

between the initial site inspection, the show cause notice, and

the complaint. In fact, the absence of such an explanation

only prompts the Court to infer some sinister motive behind

initiating the criminal proceedings.

24. While inordinate delay in itself may not be ground for

quashing of a criminal complaint, in such cases, unexplained

inordinate delay of such length must be taken into

consideration as a very crucial factor as grounds for quashing

a criminal complaint.

25. While this Court does not expect a full-blown investigation

at the stage of a criminal complaint, however, in such cases

where the accused has been subjected to the anxiety of a

38

potential initiation of criminal proceedings for such a length of

time, it is only reasonable for the court to expect bare-

minimum evidence from the Investigating Authorities.

26. At the cost of repetition, we again state that the purpose of

filing a complaint and initiating criminal proceedings must exist

solely to meet the ends of justice, and the law must not be

used as a tool to harass the accused. The law, is meant to

exist as a shield to protect the innocent, rather than it being

used as a sword to threaten them.”

38.With respect to powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in

Ahmad Ali Quraishi (supra), the Supreme Court had observed as

under:

“13. A three-Judge Bench in State of Karnataka v. M.

Devendrappa, {(2002) 3 SCC 89}, had the occasion to

consider the ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. By analysing the

scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court laid down that

authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice and if

any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce

injustice, the Court has power to prevent abuse. It further held

that Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds

that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the

process of court or quashing of these proceedings would

otherwise serve the ends of justice. The following was laid

down in para 6: (SCC p. 94)

“6. … All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the

absence of any express provision, as inherent in their

constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the

right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of

justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alicui concedit,

concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non

potest (when the law gives a person anything it gives him

that without which it cannot exist). While exercising

powers under the section, the court does not function as a

court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the

section though wide has to be exercised sparingly,

carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is

justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section

itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and

substantial justice for the administration of which alone

courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement

of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that

authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power

to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the

court to allow any action which would result in injustice

39

and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers

court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds

that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the

process of court or quashing of these proceedings would

otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is

disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the

question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be

quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to

assess what the complainant has alleged and whether

any offence is made out even if the allegations are

accepted in toto.”

14. Further in para 8 the following was stated: (Devendrappa

case {(2002) 3 SCC 89}, SCC p. 95)

“8. … Judicial process should not be an instrument of

oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be

circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and

should take all relevant facts and circumstances into

consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an

instrument in the hands of a private complainant to

unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the

same time the section is not an instrument handed over to

an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about

its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under

Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases

where the High Court may exercise its power under it

relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of

process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of

justice were set out in some detail by this Court in State of

Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.”

15. In Sunder Babu v. State of T.N., (2009) 14 SCC 244, this

Court was considering the challenge to the order of the

Madras High Court where application was under Section 482

Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings under Section 498A

IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It was

contended before this Court that the complaint filed was

nothing but an abuse of the process of law and allegations

were unfounded. The prosecuting agency contested the

petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. taking the stand that a

bare perusal of the complaint discloses commission of alleged

offences and, therefore, it is not a case which needed to be

allowed. The High Court accepted the case of the prosecution

and dismissed the application. This Court referred to the

judgment in Bhajan Lal’s case and held that the case fell within

Category 7. The Apex Court relying on Category 7 has held

that the application under Section 482 deserved to be allowed

and it quashed the proceedings.

40

16. After considering the earlier several judgments of this

Court including the case of State of Haryana versus Bhajan lal

(supra), in Vineet Kumar (supra), this Court laid down following

in paragraph 41:(Vineet Kumar case)

“41. Inherent power given to the High Court under

Section 482 CrPC is with the purpose and object of

advancement of justice. In case solemn process of Court

is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique

motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very

threshold. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go

on if the case falls in one of the categories as

illustratively enumerated by this Court in State of

Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. Judicial process is a solemn

proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted

into an instrument of operation or harassment. When

there are materials to indicate that a criminal proceeding

is manifestly attended with mala fide and proceeding is

maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High

Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under

Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceeding under

Category 7 as enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan

Lal, which is to the following effect: (SCC p. 379, para

102)

“102. …. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is

manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the

proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior

motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and

with a view to spite him due to private and personal

grudge.”

Above Category 7 is clearly attracted in the facts of the present

case. Although, the High Court has noted the judgment of State

of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, but did not advert to the relevant

facts of the present case, materials on which final report was

submitted by the IO. We, thus, are fully satisfied that the

present is a fit case where the High Court ought to have

exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quashed

the criminal proceedings.”

17. Now, when we examine the facts of the present case in

light of the ratio as laid down by this Court in above noted

cases, it is clear that the present is a case where parties are

related and are neighbours. Civil dispute regarding property is

going on between father of the accused and the complainant.

The incident which is basis for summoning of appellant is

dated 19.07.2016 which is alleged to have taken place in front

of the house of the complainant. The materials on record do

indicate that quarrel took place between the parties on

41

19.07.2016 and police visited the spot and initiated

proceedings under Section 151, 107 and 116 Cr.P.C. The

state has brought on the record the copy of the enquiry report

dated 11.12.2016 of the CO, City, in which enquiry report,

following was stated:-

“...It was found form entire enquiry that there was dispute

between applicant Shri Sajjad Quraishi and opposite party

Anwarul Haq over constructing drain regarding which

dispute started between both the parties on 19.07.2016.

On receiving information of dispute at Police Station

Kotwali, the then SHO SI Shri hari Prakash Yadav

conducted proceeding under Sections 151, 107, 116 CrPC

on 20.07.2016 on both the parties to maintain peace

tranquillity. During enquiry, perused the complaint dated

03.08.2016 filed by the applicant before the Hon’ble

Commission and found that the applicant filed complaint

dated 29.08.2016 of the same charges u/s 156(3) CrPC

before the Hon’ble Court of Special Judge(POCSO

Act)/Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Jaunpur in

which the Hon’ble Court of Special Judge, POCSO

Act/Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Jaunpur, as per

its endorsement order dated 14.10.2016 has stated that in

the entire facts and circumstances of the said case,

sufficient grounds to register the case are not available.

Statements of other witnesses recorded during enquiry and

nearby people were interrogated whereupon eye witnesses

stated the fact of the dispute between applicant Sajjad

Qureshi and opposite party Anwar Ali over the drain and

denying the allegations levelled by the applicant in his

application, fact of opposite party Ahmed Ali and Liyakat

Ali sons of Anwar doing dirty/indecent act/deed or

manhandling whatsoever with the daughters of applicant

has not come to light. During enquiry, applicant failed to

submit oral/documentary evidence whatsoever. Other

allegations levelled by the applicant have not been proved

from the enquiry. Peace and tranquillity are prevailing at

the spot, yet SHO of Kotwali is directed to ensure peace

and tranquillity by keeping vigil on the parties.

18. We have taken note of the above report only to take the

sequence of the event and not as a substantive piece of

evidence. On the same allegations, the complainant has filed

the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was

rejected by Sessions Judge by an order dated 14.10.2016,

holding that no sufficient grounds have been made to register a

complaint against the appellant.

19. In the Criminal Revision filed against the said order of the

Session Judge, this Court did not interfere with the rejection of

42

an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., however,

observed that the complainant has remedy to file appropriate

application. The complainant thereafter had filed Complaint

No.1 of 2017. It is true that rejection of an application under

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in no manner preclude a complainant to

file a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.”

39.On the issue of framing of charge by a trial Court, the Supreme Court,

very recently in Pushpendra Kumar Sinha (supra), observed as under:

“27. It is a well settled law that at the time of framing of the

charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot

be gone into but before framing of charge the Court must apply

it’s judicial mind to the material placed on record and must be

satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was

possible. Indeed, the Court has limited scope of enquiry and

has to see whether any prima facie case against the accused is

made out or not. At the same time, the Court is also not

expected to mirror the prosecution story, but to consider the

broad probabilities of the case, weight of prima facie evidence,

documents produced and any basic infirmities etc. In this

regard the judgment of “Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal,

(1979) 3 SCC 4” can be profitably referred for ready reference.”

40.The Supreme Court, in Bhajan Lal (supra), has observed that where a

criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and or where

the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for

wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to

private and personal grudge, the inherent powers under Section 482 of

the Cr.P.C. can be exercised. From the collective reading of the facts

and circumstances of these three petitions, there remains no manner of

doubt that the action initiated against the petitioner was an outcome of

malice and with ulterior motive.

41.Bureaucracy serves as the backbone of governance, ensuring stability,

continuity, and the implementation of public policies. Bureaucrats, as the

executors of these policies, are expected to operate within a framework

of rules and regulations, maintaining impartiality regardless of the

political leadership. However, when political regimes change,

43

bureaucrats often find themselves navigating turbulent waters.

Bureaucrats are tasked with implementing laws, managing public

resources, and maintaining the everyday functioning of government

institutions. Ideally, their work transcends political ideologies, ensuring

that governance continues seamlessly. Their adherence to established

procedures and regulations forms the foundation of a stable

administrative system. However, this neutrality is often compromised

during political upheavals. A change in political leadership often brings a

shift in priorities, ideologies, and governance styles. Bureaucrats who

previously aligned their work with the policies of the outgoing regime

may find themselves out of favor. This can lead to professional

marginalization, as new regimes may perceive them as resistant to

change or loyal to the former leadership. Political leaders, particularly in

authoritarian or populist regimes, often prioritize loyalty over

competence. Bureaucrats who strictly adhered to the previous regime’s

policies might be seen as obstacles to the new leadership’s agenda,

even if their actions were guided by law and regulations. This suspicion

can lead to punitive measures, including demotions, transfers, or even

dismissals. They may be pressured to compromise their integrity by

aligning with the new leadership’s directives, even if these conflict with

established laws or ethical standards. Refusal to comply can result in

professional setbacks, while compliance can erode public trust in their

impartiality.

42.When experienced and rule-abiding officials are marginalized,

administrative efficiency suffers. Political interference in bureaucracy

undermines its impartiality, eroding public trust in government

institutions. Furthermore, the constant reshuffling of officials can result in

a loss of institutional memory, weakening the effectiveness of public

44

policies. False cases are a common tool used to silence or punish such

resistance. These fabricated charges can range from accusations of

corruption, dereliction of duty, or abuse of power to even more severe

allegations like criminal conspiracy. Such cases tarnish the reputation of

the bureaucrat, disrupt their career, and instill fear among other officials

who might otherwise stand up against similar pressures.

43.The service track record of the petitioner, which involves award of

various medals and honours goes to show that the petitioner is an able

officer of the Indian Police Service.

44.On going through the contents of the FIRs in question, it appears to be a

case of malicious prosecution against the petitioner with an oblique

motive for personal vengeance. The FIRs appear to have been

registered with only intention to rope an officer who could not place

himself in the good books of the new regime. The action of the

respondent/State in lodging FIR one after another without there being

any kind of enquiry and in a haste goes to show that the then regime was

hell bent to punish the petitioner for the reasons best known to them. The

approach of the State and the manner in proceeding with the FIRs also

show that there was no material either in the case of disproportionate

assets, sedition matter or in the matter where allegation was levelled

after six years that the petitioner could have influenced and helped the

complainant in obtaining default bail. There is no sufficient materials on

record so as to arrive at a prima facie finding that the petitioner had

accumulated unaccounted and disproportionate assets and income. It is

difficult to understand as to how an officer of the rank of Inspector

General would be interested in petty matter of helping an accused in

grant of bail. There has been no explanation whatsoever as to why the

complainant took six long years to lodge the FIR against the petitioner.

45

The conduct of the complainant itself is suspicious and at least a

preliminary enquiry in this regard should have been made. Even the torn

pieces of papers which were stated to be seditious were never placed

before the learned Trial Court which also creates a grave doubt with

regard to the genuineness of the prosecution story. The facts and

circumstances of the case and the issues involved, is squarely covered

under clause (7) of paragraph 102 of the judgment rendered by the

Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra).

45.In view of the foregoing discussions, in Cr.M.P. No. 1488/2023, the FIR

bearing Crime No. 590/2021, registered at Police Station Supela,

District Durg, dated 27.07.2021, the charge-sheet No. 334/2022 and

the consequent criminal proceedings with respect to the petitioner, stand

quashed.

46.With respect to Cr.M.P. No. 2747/2023, the order dated 04.08.2023

passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act) and First Additional

Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Special Criminal Case No. 01/2022, is

quashed. The order dated 15.09.2023 passed by the learned Special

Judge also stands quashed.

47.With respect to Cr.M.P. No. 683/2024, the FIR bearing Crime No.

134/2021 dated 08.07.2021 registered at Police Station, Kotwali, District

Raipur and the charge-sheet No. 120/2021 (Annexure P/1 collectively)

and the consequential criminal proceedings with respect to the

petitioner, stand quashed.

48.Resultantly, these three Cr.M.Ps stand allowed. No order as to cost.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

Manpreet

46

HEAD NOTE

If the facts and circumstances clearly indicate that the criminal

proceedings have been instituted with ulterior motive for a malicious

prosecution, the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can

be exercised for quashing of the charge-sheet and the consequential

criminal proceedings.