Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 7720
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Bibhu Datta Guru, J
Satpal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRMP No. 347 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Anil S. Pandey
For the Respondents: Mr. S.S.Baghel
The court reiterated that FIRs should only be quashed in exceptional cases where allegations do not establish any offense, emphasizing the necessity for sufficient preliminary evidence.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Jurisdiction to quash FIR - The court may quash the FIR or charge-sheet if the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence. The court emphasized the need for caution in exercising this power and that it should not ordinarily interfere with investigations of cognizable offences. (Paras 8 and 9)
(B) Burden of Proof - The burden rests on the petitioner to demonstrate that no case is made out against them. The court found sufficient preliminary evidence in the charge-sheet connecting the petitioner to the allegations of impersonation and forgery. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused of assisting candidates in impersonating others during recruitment examinations and has been charged under IPC provisions for forgery and cheating.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the allegations, when accepted at face value, constitute a cognizable offence.
Issues: The main issues included whether the allegations in the FIR warranted quashing of proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that jurisdiction to quash is to be exercised sparingly, emphasizing that allegations must be taken at face value and that there was sufficient evidence to support the charge-sheet against the petitioner.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations involve fraud in recruitment. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner's defense against charges. (Para 5) |
| 3. quashing of fir requires evidence does not constitute an offense. (Para 6 , 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. legal standard for quashing firs. (Para 9) |
Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
08/07/2025
1. Heard Mr. Anil S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent.
2. The petitioner, by way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No. 273/2019 and the final report No. 312/2019 submitted by the Police of Police Station, Utai District Durg, before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, and the entire criminal proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Durg, bearing Criminal Case No. 9412/2019 for the offences pu nishable under Section 419, 420, 120-
B, 467 and 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The facts, in brief, is that the Assistant Commandant of Central Industrial Security Force, Utai lodged an FIR at Police Station, Utai on 13.08.2019 alleging that some of the candidates appearing in the recruitment tests were bogus candidates and some other persons were appearing in place of the real candidates in order to ensure that they may be selected in the recruitment process. As many as 32 persons were named in the FIR. The petitioner herein is alleged to have assured the candidates that he will get them employed in the CISF and had also assisted in preparation of forged documents. After the investigation, some more accused were added. It is also alleged that some of the the accused persons had demanded Rs. 1 Lac to Rs.
8 Lacs to get them employed in CISF.
4. Mr. Anil S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has also been filed. The petitioner has neither prepared nor fabricated any document nor used them as genuine. The petitioner is an ex-serviceman and after his retirement, he is running a training centre where the candidates obtain training for participate in the Armed forces and merely some candidates from his training centre have participated in the selection process, the petitioner has been roped in this case.
There is no prima facie evidence available against the petitioner to hold him guilty of any of the offences as mentioned above.
5. On the other hand, Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent submits that the charge sheet has already been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, and a case has been registered as Criminal Case No. 9412/2019 and now it is for the learned Magistrate for proceed with the matter. He further submits that there are ample evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the offence in question.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.
7. The allegations against the petitioner are that he assisted the real candidates to be replaced by forged candidates so that they may pass the recruitment examination. He is also alleged to have prepared forged documents for the candidates.
8. 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 inheren
