The court's power to quash an FIR is limited to preventing abuse of process or manifest illegality; it cannot be used to conduct a preliminary trial or evaluate the merits of a departmental inquiry when the FIR discloses cognizable offenses.

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.1 / State.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer:

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to allow the application by making an order to quash the crime no. 21/2024 dated 01.12.2024 for offence u/s 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC. pending before Police Station Chintalnar District Sukma (C.G.) as crime no. 21/2024 and discharge from the case to the applicant.”

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that Shri Narad Kumar Manjhi, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Konta, District Sukma, submitted a written complaint dated 23.11.2024 before the Station House Officer, Police Station Chintalnar, alleging that the petitioner, Shri Uday Bhaskar, dismissed Secretary of Gram Panchayat Kamaram, during the years 2021 to 2023, failed to withdraw and distribute pension amounts to eligible pensioners, did not pay wages to villagers engaged in construction of ponds under the Panchayat, and withdrew funds under the 14th and 15th Finance Commission schemes by forging signatures without executing any work, thereby embezzling a total amount of Rs.99,23,442/-. The complaint was based on a departmental inquiry report dated 03.11.2023 received from the District Panchayat Sukma, wherein the charges were found proved and were stated to be in violation of Rule 3(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Conduct) Rules, 1998 and Rule 18 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Accounts) Rules. On the basis of the said written complaint along with the inquiry report and supporting documents, a crime was registered at Police Station Chintalnar and the matter was taken up for investigation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the registration of the FIR against the petitioner is wholly unjustified and liable to be quashed, as the police have not complied with the mandate laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar , reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 which requires proper scrutiny and satisfaction before arrest or registration of an FIR. It is contended that the impugned FIR bearing No. 21/2024 registered at Police Station Chintalnar is an abuse of process of law, as it is based on allegations without attributing any specific role to the petitioner, lacks material particulars necessary to establish offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, and was lodged without obtaining prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., while the petitioner was acting in his official capacity as Secretary of Gram Panchayat Kamaram/Kondasawali, Janpad Panchayat Konta, District Sukma. Learned counsel further submits that the revisional authority, in its order dated 16.01.2025, expressed dissatisfaction with the enquiry report and directed a fresh spot inspection to verify the allegations, which clearly indicates that the departmental proceedings conducted earlier were incomplete and not conclusive. Nevertheless, the police prematurely registered the FIR without considering the subsequent inspection report or examining the departmental records. It is argued that the respondent authorities themselves had not satisfied whether the petitioner had committed any offence, as evidenced by the amendment order of 21.09.2023, which partially modified the departmental inquiry and called for further investigation, yet the FIR was lodged in a mechanical and illegal manner. In view of the above, the impugned FIR is a result of non-applicat