The court's power to quash an FIR under Section 528 of the BNSS is limited to preventing abuse of process and cannot be used to conduct a preliminary trial or evaluate the merits of a departmental enquiry when cognizable offences are disclosed.

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy 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. 05/2024 dated 24.11.2024 for offence u/s 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, of IPC. pending before Police Station Chintagufa District Sukma (C.G.) as crime no. 05/2024 and discharge from the case to the applicant.”

3. The prosecution case in brief is that Shri Narad Kumar Manjhi, Chief Executive Officer of District Panchayat, Konta, submitted a written complaint on 23.11.2024 alleging that Uday Bhaskar / petitioner herein, dismissed Secretary of Gram Panchayat Duled, between 2021 and 2023, failed to distribute two years’ pension to entitled pension holders, did not pay wages to villagers engaged in the construction of four ponds in Minpa village under the MNREGA scheme, and withdrew funds under the 14th and 15th Finance Plans by forging signatures, thereby embezzling a total sum of Rs.47,83,528/- without executing any work. The complaint, forwarded by the office of District Panchayat Sukma and supported by an investigation report dated 22.11.2023, found these acts in clear violation of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Conduct) Rules 1998 (Rule 3 General (1)(a)) and Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Accounts) Rule 18 . Based on this complaint, an FIR was registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC, the FIR was read over and acknowledged by the informant, and the matter was taken up for investigation in accordance with Section 154(B) of the Cr.P.C., following which proceedings were initiated to ascertain the commission of the alleged offences.

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. 05/2024 registered at Police Station Chintagufa 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 impugn