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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 5103

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
KRISHNA KUMAR TIWARI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
CRMP/608/2023



2026:CGHC:8009-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 608 of 2023 Krishna Kumar Tiwari S/o Nandeshwar Tiwari Aged About 52 Years R/o Bhiyapara, P.S. Lakhanpur, District - Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station Lakhanpur, District - Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Jaichand S/o Rijhan Ram Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Chando, Lakhanpur, Ambikapur (Sarguja), District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : None For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice VED 13/02/2026 PRAKASH DEWANGAN

1. In the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the petitioner –

VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.02.18 Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashment of the First Information Report registered as Crime No.160/2022 at Police Station Lakhanpur, District Sarguja (C.G.), the charge-sheet filed thereupon for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and the consequential proceedings of Special Criminal Case No.59/2022 pending before the Court of Special Judge (Atrocities), Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.).

2. The facts of the case, in brief, as emerges from the pleadings are that, the present petition arises out of registration of FIR bearing Crime No.160/2022 at Police Station Lakhanpur, District Sarguja (C.G.), on the complaint of respondent No.2 – Jaichand. The allegation in the complaint is that he and his deceased father, Rijhan Ram, were maintaining a joint savings bank account bearing No. 604010013935 with Zila Sahkari Kendriya Maryadit Bank, Lakhanpur, along with DMR Cash Account No. 604010151692 and DMR Kind Account No. 404010186442.

It is alleged that the father of the complainant expired on 13.08.2019. According to the complainant, after the death of his father, neither did he submit any application before the Aadim Jati Seva Sahkari Samiti, Chando, nor did he withdraw any amount or obtain any loan from the said Bank. Subsequently, upon obtaining account statements through his nephew, he allegedly discovered that an amount totaling Rs.

1,88,025/- had been disbursed as loan from the aforesaid accounts on different dates.

On enquiry, the complainant alleged that the said loan transactions were fraudulently processed by the then Branch Manager (present petitioner), along with the Society Manager and the cashier of the Bank, without his knowledge or consent and after the death of his father.

On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered the aforementioned FIR and, after investigation, filed a charge-sheet for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The matter is presently pending as Special Criminal Case No.59/2022 before the Court of Special Judge (Atrocities), Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.).

The petitioner, who was posted as Branch Manager at the relevant time, has denied the allegations and has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the FIR, charge-

sheet and consequential proceedings.

3. When the matter is called for hearing, none appears on behalf of the petitioner to prosecute or press the present petition, despite repeated calls. No request for adjournment is made and there is no representation on record on behalf of the petitioner. It is further noticed that no interim order has been passed in the present petition at any stage.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the present petition and submits that the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences. It is cont

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