1

CGHC010298392026 2026:CGHC:34398-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRMP No. 2069 of 2026

Shashank Chopda, S/o Shri Shantilal Chopda, Aged About 33 Years R/o

Chopda Compound, 35 Azad Ward, Ganjpara, District Durg,

Chhattisgarh

... Petitioner(s)

versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Additional Superintendent Of Police,

Economic Offence Wing / Anti Corruotion Bureau, District -Raipur,

Chhattisgarh

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) :Mr.Mayank Kumar, Advocate

For Respondent(s) :Mr.Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

06.08.2026

1.Heard Mr.Mayank Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as

well as Mr.Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General

appearing for the respondent/State.

2.The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section

2

528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short,

‘B.N.S.S.’) with the following relief(s):-

“1) Quash the FIR No. 05/2025 dated 22.01.2025

registered at P.S. ACB/EOW, Raipur under

Section 120B r/w 409 of the IPC, 1860 and

Section 13(1)(A), 13(2) AND 7(C) of the PC Act,

1988 and the Chargesheet bearing no. 11/2025

dated 25.04.2025 and Supplementary

Chargesheet bearing no. 11(A)/2025 dated

16.04.2026, in so far as they relate to petitioner,

filed before Learned Special Judge (PC Act) and

1

st

Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, C.G. and

also further quash the criminal proceedings

arising therefrom qua petitioner, including the

order dated 26.04.2025 passed by the Learned

Special Judge (PC Act) and 1

st

Additional

Sessions Judge, Raipur, C.G., whereby Special

Case (SPC) No. 02/2025 came to be registered,

along with all consequential proceedings arising

therefrom.

2) Pass any other order(s) which this Hon'ble

Court may deem fit and proper under the facts

and circumstances of this case.”

3.Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that Tender No.

182/EQP/CGMSC/2022-23, floated by CGMSCL on 26.08.2022 for

procurement of medical equipment and reagents under the "Hamar Lab

Scheme", was manipulated through a criminal conspiracy between

officials of CGMSCL, Health Department officers, Mokshit Corporation

and other entities. According to the prosecution, the tender conditions

3

were deliberately framed to favour Mokshit Corporation, despite

objections raised during the pre-bid stage, resulting in Mokshit

Corporation being declared the L-1 bidder and awarded the contract. It

is alleged that Mokshit Corporation, in collusion with two other firms,

indulged in tender pooling by submitting identical bids, thereby

eliminating genuine competition and ensuring that Mokshit Corporation

secured the contract.

4.The prosecution further alleges that the Department of Health

Services generated excessive and unjustified demand for reagents,

which CGMSCL converted into purchase orders without verifying actual

requirements, availability of infrastructure, or financial capacity. It is

alleged that CGMSCL issued purchase orders worth approximately Rs.

314 crores for reagents despite being aware that hospitals and health

centres lacked essential infrastructure such as cold storage,

refrigerators, UPS systems, proper electrical installations and other

facilities necessary for storage and use of the reagents. As a

consequence, reagents valued at approximately Rs. 161 crores

allegedly expired unused in district hospitals, health centres and

CGMSCL warehouses by April 2025, causing substantial loss to the

State exchequer. The prosecution also alleges that certain

consumables, including EDTA blood collection tubes, were procured at

highly inflated prices, causing wrongful financial gain to the suppliers

and corresponding wrongful loss to the Government.

5.On the basis of secret information, FIR No.05/2025 was registered

4

on 22.01.2025 by ACB/EOW, Raipur for offences under Sections 120-B

and 409 IPC and Sections 7(c), 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, alleging criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust,

abuse of official position and corruption. After investigation, the

prosecution filed the main charge-sheet on 25.04.2025 and a

supplementary charge-sheet on 16.04.2026, arraigning the petitioner

along with public servants and other private entities for offences under

Sections 120-B and 409 IPC and Sections 7(c), 13(1)(a) read with 13(2)

of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence, this petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present FIR is

nothing but an attempt to convert a purely contractual and commercial

dispute into a criminal proceeding with the objective of avoiding

admitted contractual liabilities. The genesis of the dispute lies in Tender

No.182/EQP/CGMSC/2022-23 and the subsequent rate contract

executed between Mokshit Corporation and CGMSCL. The issues

raised by the prosecution, including tender conditions, quantity of

procurement, infrastructure availability, utilisation of reagents, payment

obligations and contractual performance, are matters arising out of the

contractual relationship and are already pending adjudication before the

appropriate arbitral forum. It is submitted that criminal proceedings

cannot be permitted to be used as a tool for pressurising a contracting

party or for avoiding legitimate commercial liabilities. Reliance is placed

upon Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673

and Usha Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal, (2023) 15 SCC 135,

wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where a dispute is

5

essentially civil in nature and criminal allegations are merely used as a

cloak, continuation of such proceedings amounts to abuse of process.

7.Learned counsel submits that the prosecution's allegation that

Mokshit Corporation derived undue financial benefit from Tender No.

182 is contrary to the admitted facts. Against the supplies made under

the tender, an amount of approximately Rs. 338 crores remains

outstanding from CGMSCL. Additionally, Mokshit Corporation has

discharged substantial statutory liabilities, including payment of

approximately Rs. 59 crores towards GST and Rs. 75 crores towards

income tax. It is submitted that a supplier who has fully supplied the

contracted goods, paid taxes on such supplies and is awaiting payment

from the procuring authority cannot be alleged to have obtained

wrongful pecuniary advantage. Rather, the company has suffered

financial prejudice due to non-payment of contractual dues.

8.Learned counsel submits that the entire record demonstrates the

bona fide conduct of Mokshit Corporation. Immediately upon

discovering deficiencies in infrastructure at various facilities, including

absence of refrigeration facilities, UPS systems, proper electrical

earthing and other necessary arrangements, the company repeatedly

informed CGMSCL and senior officials of the Health Department. The

communications dated 27.06.2023, 20.09.2023, 09.10.2023,

14.10.2023 and subsequent representations clearly establish that

Mokshit Corporation had warned the authorities regarding possible

expiry of reagents and non-utilisation of equipment. Therefore, the

6

allegation that Mokshit Corporation intentionally caused wastage of

reagents is wholly inconsistent with the contemporaneous record. He

further submits that under the rate contract, Mokshit Corporation's

obligation was limited to supply, installation and warranty maintenance

of equipment. The responsibility for assessing requirement, generating

indents, issuing purchase orders, ensuring availability of infrastructure,

maintaining cold chain, deployment of manpower and utilisation of

reagents rested entirely with CGMSCL and DHS. The official

communications of DHS dated 03.11.2023 and 23.11.2023 and the

communication of the State Health and Family Welfare Department

dated 21.02.2024 themselves acknowledge that expiry of reagents due

to infrastructure deficiencies would be attributable to CGMSCL. Thus,

the prosecution theory seeks to shift the responsibility of administrative

failures upon a private supplier who had repeatedly cautioned the

authorities.

9.Learned counsel contended that the allegation that Mokshit

Corporation indulged in tender pooling is based solely on similarity of

formats submitted by bidders. The format of the price bid and reagent

comparison chart was itself provided by CGMSCL during the pre-bid

process to all participating bidders. Adoption of a uniform format was

necessary for comparative evaluation and determination of L-1 bidder.

No evidence has been collected to establish any agreement,

communication, exchange of information or collusion between bidders.

No examination of digital footprints, IP addresses or electronic records

of the bidding process was undertaken. Mere similarity of documents

7

cannot constitute criminal conspiracy. Reliance is placed upon K.R.

Purushothaman v. State of Kerala, (2005) 12 SCC 631, wherein the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that criminal conspiracy requires proof of

an agreement to commit an illegal act and cannot be inferred merely

from suspicion or association.

10. Learned counsel further contended that there is no allegation,

much less evidence, of any gratification, illegal payment, undue

advantage or quid pro quo between Mokshit Corporation and any public

servant. Neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet alleges any demand or

acceptance of illegal gratification by any public servant at the instance

of the Petitioner. In the absence of any allegation or proof of demand

and acceptance, invocation of offences under the Prevention of

Corruption Act is unsustainable. Reliance is placed upon Neeraj Dutta

v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731, wherein demand and

acceptance have been recognised as essential ingredients for

corruption offences. Further, Section 409 IPC is wholly inapplicable as

there was no entrustment of any property or public funds to Mokshit

Corporation. On the contrary, Mokshit Corporation supplied goods to

CGMSCL and remains an unpaid creditor. The essential ingredient of

entrustment required for criminal breach of trust is therefore absent.

11.He also contended that the allegation regarding EDTA tubes being

overpriced is based upon an incorrect comparison with alleged open

market prices. The Government e-Marketplace itself reflects prices of

similar EDTA tubes up to Rs. 30 per unit. Therefore, the contracted price

8

of Rs. 23.52 per tube cannot be termed excessive or indicative of any

dishonest intention. The prosecution has failed to establish any artificial

inflation, wrongful gain or manipulation in pricing.

12. Learned counsel submitted that the investigation has selectively

relied upon allegations while ignoring material documents favourable to

the Petitioner, including repeated warnings issued by Mokshit

Corporation, admissions of outstanding dues by CGMSCL,

communications of DHS fixing responsibility upon CGMSCL and

documents establishing compliance with shelf-life requirements. The

charge-sheet fails to explain how a supplier who repeatedly cautioned

the authorities, suffered non-payment and had no control over

infrastructure could be held criminally liable for administrative failures of

the procuring authorities. He further submitted that all major decisions

relating to tender formulation, approval of tender conditions, acceptance

of bids, issuance of purchase orders and continuation of procurement

were taken by senior officials of CGMSCL and the Health Department.

However, the prosecution has selectively targeted Mokshit Corporation,

an unpaid supplier, while excluding key decision-makers who controlled

the entire procurement process. Such selective action demonstrates an

attempt to shift institutional responsibility and prosecute the Petitioner

as a scapegoat.

13.Learned counsel also submitted that even if the allegations in the

charge-sheet are accepted at face value, they do not disclose the

commission of any criminal offence by the Petitioner. The allegations, at

9

their highest, disclose contractual disagreements and administrative

failures, for which civil remedies are already available and being

pursued. Reliance is placed upon Sushil Suri v. CBI, (2011) 5 SCC 708

and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein

the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that criminal proceedings deserve

to be quashed where continuation thereof would amount to abuse of

process or where allegations fail to constitute the offences alleged.

Accordingly, it is submitted that the criminal proceedings against the

petitioner are legally untenable, malicious in nature and liable to be

quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

14. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General

appearing for the Respondent-State submits that the present petition

seeks to prematurely terminate criminal proceedings at the threshold

despite the investigation having resulted in filing of a detailed charge-

sheet and supplementary charge-sheet. The allegations involve large-

scale financial irregularities, abuse of official position, criminal

conspiracy and loss to public exchequer involving hundreds of crores of

rupees. Such serious economic offences require a full-fledged trial and

cannot be examined in a petition under Section 482 CrPC on the basis

of defence material sought to be relied upon by the Petitioner. He

further submits that merely because the allegations arise out of a

contractual arrangement, the same does not bar criminal prosecution. A

contractual relationship can also give rise to criminal offences where the

acts complained of disclose elements of conspiracy, corruption,

cheating, breach of trust or wrongful gain.

10

15.It is submitted that the prosecution is not seeking adjudication of

contractual disputes but is proceeding on allegations that the tender

process itself was manipulated, purchase orders were issued without

assessment of requirement and infrastructure, and undue benefit was

extended to the private supplier at the cost of public funds. He also

submits that the prosecution case is not based merely on the existence

of outstanding payments. The investigation has revealed that Mokshit

Corporation was awarded a high-value tender pursuant to a process

which is alleged to have been compromised, resulting in procurement of

excessive quantities of reagents which could not be utilised and

ultimately expired, causing substantial loss to the Government. The fact

that payments are allegedly pending does not negate the allegation of

wrongful benefit, as the investigation concerns the manner in which the

tender was awarded and purchase orders were generated.

16.He submitted that criminal conspiracy is generally established

through circumstantial evidence and direct proof of an agreement is

rarely available. The similarity in bids, tender conditions, participation

pattern of bidders and subsequent conduct of the accused persons

constitute relevant circumstances which require examination during trial.

At the stage of considering a petition under Section 482 CrPC (now

Section 528 BNSS), the Court is required to examine whether a prima

facie case exists and not conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence or

accept the defence version. He further submitted that the investigation

has revealed that Tender No. 182 contained conditions which allegedly

restricted competition and ultimately benefited Mokshit Corporation.

11

Despite objections raised by bidders, the tender conditions remained

unchanged and Mokshit Corporation was declared L-1. Whether such

conditions were intentionally designed to favour a particular bidder and

whether there was collusion between the private entities and public

officials are matters which can only be determined during trial after

appreciation of evidence.

17.Learned Additional Advocate General contended that the petitioner

is relying upon contractual communications, letters exchanged with

CGMSCL, arbitration proceedings and other documents to establish its

innocence. However, such disputed questions of fact cannot be

examined in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528

BNSS). He further contended that the offences alleged include criminal

conspiracy, abuse of official position and wrongful pecuniary advantage.

At the stage of investigation and framing of charges, the prosecution is

not required to establish the entire case beyond reasonable doubt. The

question whether there was any undue advantage, collusion or illegal

benefit arising from the tender process is a matter of evidence. The

absence of recovery of money or direct proof of payment cannot be a

ground for quashing when the overall circumstances disclose a prima

facie offence. He also contended that the prosecution case is that public

funds were entrusted for procurement of medical equipment and

reagents and were dealt with in a manner causing wrongful loss to the

State. The precise role and liability of each accused person, including

the Petitioner, would be determined during trial. Pendency of arbitration

proceedings between Mokshit Corporation and CGMSCL does not

12

prevent the State from prosecuting offences which disclose criminality.

Civil proceedings and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously

where the allegations constitute independent criminal offences. The

arbitration proceedings relate to contractual claims and cannot

determine the issue of criminal liability arising from alleged corruption

and conspiracy. He lastly submits that the inherent jurisdiction of the

High Court is to be exercised sparingly and only where the allegations,

even if accepted in entirety, do not constitute any offence. In the present

case, the FIR and charge-sheet disclose prima facie commission of

offences under the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act. Accordingly,

the petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings deserves to be

dismissed.

18.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record with utmost circumspection.

19.The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal

proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint,

FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in

exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the

investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations

made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and

accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or

make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may

be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers

under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.).

13

20.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rupan Deol Bajaj

v. K.P.S. Gill, (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of

Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v.

Biological E Ltd. & Ors, 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Supreme Court

clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the

ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint.

However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence

as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court

should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was

reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be

very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy

about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out,

the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed.

21.In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra,

2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

authoritatively settled the scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High

Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The

Apex Court has held that the power to quash criminal proceedings is

required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the

rarest of rare cases. It has been categorically observed that while

considering a prayer for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, the

High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability,

genuineness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR, nor

can it appreciate the evidence or conduct a mini trial. The Court is only

14

required to examine whether the allegations, if taken at their face value,

disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court

further emphasized that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at

the threshold, that investigation into cognizable offences should

ordinarily be permitted to proceed unhindered, and that the

extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised

with great caution and self-restraint, save in exceptional cases where

non-interference would result in manifest miscarriage of justice.

22.Very recently, in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar

Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on

02.09.2025), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid

principles and further held that while exercising jurisdiction under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS), the High Court

cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact or evaluate the evidentiary

worth of the material collected during investigation. The Court reaffirmed

the test laid down in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor and observed

that criminal proceedings can be quashed at the threshold only when

the material relied upon by the accused is of sterling and impeccable

quality, completely demolishes the prosecution case, remains incapable

of being refuted by the prosecution, and continuation of the criminal

proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. Unless

all these parameters are cumulatively satisfied, the High Court ought

not to interfere in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, leaving the parties

to establish their respective cases before the trial Court in accordance

with law.

15

23.Having considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of

the parties and having perused the material available on record, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition filed under

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking

quashing of FIR, charge-sheet and consequential proceedings does not

merit acceptance.

24.At the outset, it is required to be noted that the jurisdiction of this

Court under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482

Cr.P.C.) is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised

sparingly, cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances. The Court,

while exercising such jurisdiction, is not required to conduct a

meticulous examination of the evidence, appreciate the defence raised

by the accused or undertake a mini trial. The limited enquiry is whether

the allegations contained in the FIR, charge-sheet and the material

collected during investigation, taken at their face value, disclose the

commission of any cognizable offence.

25.In the present case, the allegations against the petitioner are not

confined to a mere breach of contractual obligations or non-payment of

contractual dues. The prosecution case is founded on allegations of

manipulation of the tender process, criminal conspiracy between public

officials and private entities, issuance of purchase orders without

assessment of actual requirement and infrastructure availability,

procurement of excessive quantities of reagents resulting in alleged loss

to the public exchequer and wrongful financial advantage to the private

16

suppliers.

26.The allegations, therefore, cannot be said to arise merely from a

private commercial transaction. The prosecution alleges criminality in

the very process of procurement and execution of the tender. Whether

such allegations are ultimately established or not is a matter to be

examined during trial, but at this stage, the same cannot be brushed

aside as being purely civil in nature.

27.The principal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is

that the dispute is essentially contractual in nature and has already

been referred to arbitration. It is submitted that the criminal proceedings

have been initiated only to avoid payment of outstanding dues payable

to Mokshit Corporation. However, this Court is unable to accept the said

contention at this stage.

28.It is settled law that pendency of civil proceedings or arbitration

proceedings does not act as a bar to criminal prosecution if the

allegations disclose commission of criminal offences. Civil and criminal

proceedings can proceed simultaneously when the ingredients of

criminal offences are independently made out. The arbitration

proceedings between Mokshit Corporation and CGMSCL relate to

contractual claims and payment disputes, whereas the criminal

proceedings arise from allegations of conspiracy, corruption and abuse

of official position in the tender process.

29.The reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paramjeet Batra (supra) and Usha

17

Chakraborty (supra) does not assist the petitioner in the facts of the

present case.

30.In Paramjeet Batra (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed

that where a dispute is essentially civil in nature and criminal

proceedings are initiated merely by giving a cloak of criminality to a civil

dispute, the same may amount to abuse of process. However, the Court

also clarified that the nature of allegations and the existence of criminal

ingredients are required to be examined in each case. In the present

matter, the allegations are not restricted to contractual non-performance

but relate to alleged manipulation of a public procurement process,

conspiracy and loss to public funds.

31.Similarly, in Usha Chakraborty (supra), the criminal proceedings

were quashed as the dispute was found to be purely civil and the

criminal allegations were merely an attempt to exert pressure in a

pending civil dispute. In the present case, the prosecution has placed

allegations regarding the manner in which the tender was awarded, the

alleged collusive conduct of bidders, and procurement decisions

resulting in alleged loss to the State exchequer. Thus, the factual

foundation of the present case is materially different.

32.The submission of the petitioner that no wrongful gain accrued to

Mokshit Corporation as substantial payments remain outstanding also

cannot be accepted at this stage. The prosecution allegation is not

merely that payment was made to Mokshit Corporation without supply

of goods. The allegation is that the tender process itself was allegedly

18

compromised and that procurement was carried out in a manner

causing wrongful loss to the State. The existence of outstanding

contractual dues, payment of taxes or financial difficulties of the

company may constitute defence material, but the same cannot be

evaluated while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

33.The contention that Mokshit Corporation repeatedly informed

CGMSCL about infrastructural deficiencies and possible expiry of

reagents also raises disputed questions of fact. The petitioner seeks

reliance upon various communications exchanged between the parties

to establish its bona fide conduct and shift responsibility upon

CGMSCL. However, the prosecution alleges that despite such

circumstances, excessive procurement continued pursuant to a process

allegedly influenced by the accused persons. The effect, relevance and

interpretation of such communications are matters requiring

appreciation of evidence during trial.

34.Similarly, the allegation of tender pooling and criminal conspiracy

cannot be examined conclusively at this stage. The prosecution relies

upon circumstances including similarity in bid documents, tender

conditions and conduct of participating entities. It is well settled that

conspiracy is generally proved through circumstantial evidence and

direct evidence of an agreement is rarely available. Whether the

circumstances relied upon by the prosecution ultimately establish a

criminal conspiracy is a matter for trial.

35.The judgment relied upon by the petitioner in K.R.

19

Purushothaman (supra) lays down the principles regarding proof of

conspiracy but does not support quashing at the threshold where the

prosecution has alleged circumstances requiring appreciation of

evidence. The said judgment itself recognises that conspiracy may be

express or implied and can be established through surrounding

circumstances.

36.The contention regarding absence of demand or acceptance of

illegal gratification and reliance upon Neeraj Dutta (supra) also does

not persuade this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS

at this stage.

37.The prosecution has invoked provisions of the Prevention of

Corruption Act alleging abuse of official position, conspiracy and

wrongful pecuniary advantage. The applicability of the statutory

provisions and the sufficiency of evidence to establish the ingredients of

the offences are matters for trial. At the present stage, the Court cannot

examine the probative value of the evidence or record a finding

regarding absence of guilt.

38.The contention that Section 409 IPC is not attracted as there was

no entrustment of property to Mokshit Corporation also involves an

appreciation of the allegations and evidence collected during

investigation. The prosecution case is that public funds were dealt with

pursuant to the procurement process resulting in alleged wrongful loss.

Whether the ingredients of criminal breach of trust are ultimately

established is a matter to be determined by the trial Court.

20

39.The submission regarding selective prosecution and non-

impleadment of certain officials also cannot be a ground for quashing

the proceedings against the petitioner. Merely because some other

persons may not have been arrayed as accused does not by itself

establish mala fide prosecution or absolve the petitioner if material

collected during investigation discloses his alleged involvement.

40.The reliance placed upon Sushil Suri (supra) and Bhajan Lal

(supra) is also misplaced in the facts of the present case.

41.In Bhajan Lal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down

illustrative categories where interference may be justified, including

cases where the allegations, even if accepted in entirety, do not

constitute an offence. However, the present case does not fall within

such categories, as the FIR and charge-sheet disclose specific

allegations regarding alleged conspiracy, abuse of official position and

financial irregularities in a government procurement process.

42.Likewise, Sushil Suri (supra) reiterates that inherent powers are

to be exercised to prevent abuse of process, but such power cannot be

invoked to stifle legitimate prosecution where a prima facie case is

disclosed.

43.The judgments relied upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Pradeep Kumar

Kesharwani (supra) clearly emphasise that the High Court, while

exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS,

cannot appreciate disputed facts, examine the defence of the accused

21

or determine the reliability of the prosecution evidence.

44.Applying the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the

petitioner has sought to rely upon disputed documents and explanations

which require appreciation of evidence. The material relied upon by the

petitioner cannot be said to be of such unimpeachable nature as would

completely demolish the prosecution case at the threshold.

45.Considering the nature of allegations, the stage of proceedings,

the material collected during investigation and the settled principles

governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction, this Court is of the opinion

that the present case does not warrant interference under Section 528

of the BNSS. The allegations, taken at their face value, disclose prima

facie commission of offences requiring adjudication by the trial Court.

46.Consequently, the present petition being devoid of merit is hereby

dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein

are confined only to the adjudication of the present petition under

Section 528 BNSS and shall not prejudice the petitioner or any other

accused during the course of trial.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)

Judge Chief Justice

Bablu