SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Chh) 88

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Mr. Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Kauselendra Singh S/o Late L. H. Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home - Respondent
CRMP No. 1238 of 2017 with WPCR No. 347 of 2017
Decided On : 03-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Saurabh Dangi, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate Mr. Amiya Kant Tiwari, Advocate.

The court ruled that an FIR may be quashed if allegations do not disclose an offence, emphasizing prior judicial validation of the recruitment process.

Headnote:

(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) - Quashing of FIR - Petitioners sought to quash an FIR registered against them for alleged irregularities in recruitment - The appointments were validated by the High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court - The complaint lacked direct allegations against the petitioners for personal gain. (Paras 8, 17, 20)

(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized that if the allegations do not disclose an offence, the FIR may be quashed - Reliance on prior judgments was critical in determining the validity of actions taken by the petitioners. (Paras 9, 10, 20)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners were involved in recruitment for Assistant Manager positions in a State Corporation, which faced allegations of illegal appointments. An inquiry led to the cancellation of appointments, but the petitioners contended that the recruitment process followed legal protocols and was validated by higher courts.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the FIR did not substantiate any allegations of wrongdoing against the petitioners, and the recruitment process was upheld by previous judgments.

Issues: The main issues were whether the allegations constituted an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and whether the FIR should be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lack of direct allegations against the petitioners for personal gain, combined with the validation of the recruitment process by higher courts, warranted quashing the FIR.

Result: Both petitions allowed.

Order :

(Ramesh Sinha, CJ.)

1. Heard Mr. Saurabh Dangi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

2. Since both the petitions i.e. Cr.M.P. No. 1238/2017 and WP(Cr). No. 347/2017 arise out of same offence, and the relief sought in both the petitions being identical, they are being considered and decided together by this common order.

3. In Cr.M.P. No. 1238/2017, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s):

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside and quash the FIR registered by respondent bearing Crime No. 24/17 and the order passed by the Special Judge dated 22.07.2017 in to secure the ends of justice.”

4. In WP(Cr) No. 347/2017, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):

“10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside and quash the FIR registered by respondent bearing Crime No. 24/17 and the order passed by the Special Judge dated 22.07.2017 in order to secure the ends of justice.

10.2 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.”

5. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners, in both the aforesaid petitions are that petitioner-Kauselendra Singh was posted as Managing Director, petitioner-M.N.Parasad Rao was posted as General Manager, and petitioner-K.S.Shrey was posted as Manager (Administration) in the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (for short, the Corporation) at the relevant time. In the year 2012, an advertisement was floated by the Corporation with the approval of the Board, on 30.07.2012 inviting applications for recruitment on 15 posts of Assistant Manager in the Corporation and after the due selection process, 15 persons were selected and were appointed in November, 2012. A complaint was made by the complainant / respondent No. 3, who claims himself to be a social activist alleging that the appointments were illegal as they were made without the sanction or prior approval of the Government. On 31.10.2013, the State Government directed for an enquiry to be conducted by the Joint Director, Food and Civil Supplies, who conducted the enquiry and submitted its report on 21.01.2014. Pursuant to the said enquiry report, the State Government issued a communication to the Corporation on 28.02.2014 directing the Corporation to take steps for cancellation of the appointment instead of directing preparation of fresh list as recommended by the enquiry officer. The Corporation, thereafter, convened a meeting of the Board of Directors wherein a decision was taken to cancel the appointments in view of directions received from the State Government.

6. The aforesaid order was challenged before the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(S) No. 5549/2014 and other connected matters wherein, vide judgment dated 16.08.2016, the petitions, where the termination was challenged and the petitions where the services of the petitioners therein was dispensed with during the period of probation was dismissed and the other petitions, where the petitions were filed seeking direction that the posts be filled by promotion and not direct recruitment, were disposed with an observation that the Corporation shall first consider as to whether suitable persons were available in the feeder cadre and those who would be found suitable may be dealt with in accordance with law and remaining posts could be filled up by way of direct recruitment depending upon the exigencies of the administration.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, Writ Appeals were filed by the petitioners therein being WA No. 433/2016 and other connected matters. A Division Bench of this High Court, vide judgment dated 09.11.2016 observed that there was no doubt that the post of Assistant Manager which was to be filled up in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top