2025:CGHC:57399-DB NAFR ROHIT KUMAR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CHANDRA Digitally signed CRMP No. 3594 of 2025 by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Satyanand Baank S/o Shri Banshilal Aged About 49 Years R/o Village -

Utekel, P.S. Sankara, Tehsil - Pithora, District - Mahasamund (C.G.)

... Petitioner versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station -

Sankara, District - Mahasamund (C.G.)

2 - Chandraprakash Manhar S/o Shri Gangadeen Manhar Aged About 53 Years R/o Office of Chief Executive Office, Janpad Pithora, Pithora, Tehsil - Pithora, District - Mahasamund (C.G.)

... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Bajrang Agrawal and Ms. Kiran Sahu, Advocates For Respondent : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General No.1/State Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

26.11.2025

1. Heard Mr. Bajrang Agrawal and Ms. Kiran Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent No.1.

2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers :-

“It is, therefore, prayed that the Petition may kindly be allowed and the charge-sheet in Final Report No. 51/2025, under sections 420, 34, 120-B, 407, 409, 419 of the IPC (Annexure P/1) and order taking cognizance dated 17.10.2025 (Annexure P/1), passed in Criminal Case No. 1643/2025, under Sections 420, 34, 120-B, 407, 409, 419 of the IPC, by the Court of learned JMFC Pithora, District-Mahasamund (C.G.), may kindly be quashed (only in respect of petitioner herein), in the interest of justice.”

3. The case of prosecution in anecdote is that, on 10.12.2024, complainant/ respondent No.2 Chandraprakash Manhar, employed as CEO, Janpad Panchayat Pithora, District- Mahasamund, appeared before the Police Station and submitted a written complaint. It was alleged therein that under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Gramin) for the financial year 2020-21, the benefit meant for an approved beneficiary, Smt. Premshila, wife of Late Harihar Bank, resident of Village Utekel, Janpad Panchayat Pithora, was fraudulently diverted and granted to another person of the same name, Smt. Premshila, wife of Vikas Baank, resident of Village Utekel. It was further alleged that this wrongful allotment was done by the officials of Janpad Panchayat Pithora in connivance with the then Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Utekel, Smt. Janaki Baank, Secretary Satyanand Baank, Data Entry Operator Shashi Bhushan Bariha, Mate Sanjay Yadu, and the ineligible beneficiary Smt. Premshila, wife of Vikas Bank, and that strict legal action be taken against the persons responsible.

4. On the basis of the said written complaint, an FIR No. 164/2024, under Sections 420, 34, 120-B, 407, 409 & 419 of IPC was registered. During investigation, relevant documents were seized, witnesses were examined, site inspection was conducted, and memorandum statements were recorded and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was presented against accused persons including the present petitioner on 02.02.2025 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pithora, District – Mahasanumd and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance vide impugned order dated 17.10.2025. Hence, this petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the charge-sheet and Final Report No. 51/2025 (Annexure P/1) and the order taking cognizance dated 17.10.2025 (Annexure P/1) and its proceeding is/are liable to be quashed, in respect to the petitioner, for the substantial reason that the petitioner was not the in-charge or was employee when the amount was disbursed to the imposter beneficiary from 29.05.2023 onwards (29.05.2023, 14.08.2023, 04.11.2023, 04.12.2023) during the period under which the offence was committed and the same can be perceived from the document filed a