Chattisgarh High Court
Amit Kumar Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:11367-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 648 of 2026
Amit Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Kishore Tiwari Aged About 48 Years R/o D-
52 Rama Life City, In Front Of International School, Sakri, Distt -
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of
Home/police, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal
Nagar, Raipur, Distt - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Superintendent Of Police Distt - Balodabazar-Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh.
3. Additional Superintendent Of Police Balodabazar, Distt -
Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
4. Station House Officer Police Station - City Kotwali, Balodabazar,
Distt - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
...Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Kumar Pandey, Mr. Rajesh Mishra and Ms. Neeta Tulsani, Advocates.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Digitally signed by Advocate.
BRIJMOHAN
BRIJMOHAN MORLE
MORLE Date:
2026.03.10
18:32:58
+0530
2
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
10.03.2025
1. Heard Mr. Ravi Kumar Pandey, Mr. Rajesh Mishra and Ms. Neeta Tulsani, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to a clerical error the criminal case number pending against the petitioner could not be mentioned in the prayer clause of the petition. It is further submitted that a covering memo dated 10.03.2026 has now been filed incorporating the correct prayer along with the proper criminal case number. The said covering memo is taken on record.
3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and pleased to quash registration of First Information Report No. 260 of 2024 vide dated 24.10.2024 for the offence under Sections 384, 389, 212, 201 and 34 of the IPC registered by the Police Station City Kotwali Baloda 3 Bazar, Chhattisgarh against the petitioner, impugned Supplementary charge--sheet No. 740/A/2024 (Annexure P/4), vide charge-sheet dated 22.12.2025 for the offence 384, 389, 212, 201 and 34 of the IPC, filed against the present petitioner, order of cognizance dated 25.10.2024 Criminal Case No. 2998 of 2024 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh against the petitioner, and all consequential criminal proceedings against the petitioner in State of Chhattisgarh vs. Amit Tiwari, in the interest of justice."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially an offence was reported against nine persons namely Matian Mishra, Pushpmala Fekar, Raveena Tandon, Pratyush Maraiya @ Monty, Durga Tandon, Anjor Singh Manjhi, Shirish Pandey, Ashish Shukla and Heerakali Chaturvedi under Sections 384, 389, 212, 201 and 34 of the IPC alleging that they committed extortion by demanding a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- from one DK Das. During the course of investigation, the statement of DK Das was recorded under Section 160 CrPC wherein he alleged that the accused persons had threatened to implicate him in a false case involving a minor girl and, under such threat, extorted Rs.15 lakhs from him and distributed the amount amongst themselves. After completion of investigation, a final report bearing Crime No.260/2024 dated 24.10.2024 was filed against the said nine accused persons under the aforesaid sections.
4
5. Learned counsel further submits that apprehending arrest in connection with the aforesaid offence, the petitioner had filed an application for anticipatory bail being MCRCA No.1293/2024 before this Court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 08.11.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition and vide order dated 05.12.2024 the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted interim protection to the petitioner directing that in the event of his arrest in connection with the said crime, he shall be released on bail. It is further submitted that during further investigation the police filed a supplementary charge-sheet bearing No.740-A/2024 dated 22.12.2025 whereby the petitioner and one Meenakshi Pade were also arrayed as accused in the present case. Consequent thereto, the petitioner was arrested on 27.01.2025, however he was released on bail in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and his involvement is not borne out from the material collected during investigation. It is contended that the name of the petitioner does not appear in the FIR and even in the initial statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC no allegation has been made against him. It is further submitted that the prosecution has attempted to implicate the petitioner only on the basis of a belated statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC and alleged memorandum statements of co-accused persons. It is also argued that there is no 5 allegation of demand, threat or receipt of money by the petitioner and no recovery or bank transaction has been shown against him. Learned counsel submits that the supplementary charge-sheet has been filed without discovery of any fresh incriminating material and the petitioner being a public servant could not have been prosecuted without sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC.
7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, Vineet Kumar v. State of U.P., (2017) 13 SCC 369, Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 668, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Ram Kishan Singh v. Harmit Kaur, (1972) 3 SCC 280, George & Ors. v. State of Kerala, (1998) 4 SCC 605, State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram, (1999) 3 SCC 507, Mahesh Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 4 SCC 439, Kishan Lal v. Dharmendra Bafna, (2009) 7 SCC 685, Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254, Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184, Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1988) 3 SCC 609, State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600, Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2016) 12 SCC 87, D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain, (2020) 7 SCC 695, to contend that criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed when allegations are vague, unsupported by evidence or instituted with mala fide intent.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and 6 submits that during the course of investigation sufficient material has been collected indicating the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. It is submitted that the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC refers to the role of the petitioner and the investigating agency, upon further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC, found his involvement along with other accused persons. It is further contended that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and the allegations made against the petitioner require appreciation of evidence which can only be done during trial. It is thus submitted that the petition is premature and liable to be dismissed.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
10. The legal position regarding quashing of criminal proceedings is well settled. The power to quash an FIR or charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. Where the allegations disclose commission of a cognizable offence and the matter requires appreciation of evidence, the Court should ordinarily refrain from exercising its inherent jurisdiction.
11. From a perusal of the charge-sheet it transpires that Crime No.260/2024 was registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar under Sections 384, 389, 212 and 34 of the IPC against several accused persons who were arrested during the course of investigation. Thereafter, during further investigation under Section 173(8) of the 7 CrPC the involvement of other persons including the present petitioner came to light and accordingly supplementary charge-sheet No.740-A/2024 dated 22.12.2025 was filed before the learned trial Court.
12. The material collected during investigation indicates that statements of witnesses were recorded and other evidence was gathered on the basis of which the investigating agency formed an opinion regarding the involvement of the petitioner. Whether such material is sufficient to prove the guilt of the petitioner is a matter which falls within the domain of the trial Court and cannot be conclusively determined at this stage.
13. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner do not assist him in the facts of the present case. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that proceedings may be quashed where the allegations do not disclose any offence or are manifestly mala fide. However, in the present case the charge-sheet and the material collected during investigation prima facie disclose the involvement of the petitioner and therefore the said principles are not attracted. Similarly, the decisions in Ram Kishan Singh (supra) and Mahesh Chaudhary (supra) relate to the evidentiary value of statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC. The correctness and reliability of such statements are matters to be examined during trial and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings for quashing of the charge-sheet.
8
14. Likewise, the reliance placed on Kishan Lal (supra) and Babubhai (supra) regarding further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC is also misplaced, as the record indicates that the investigating agency carried out further investigation and collected material which led to filing of a supplementary charge-sheet against the petitioner. The question whether such material is credible or sufficient is a matter of appreciation of evidence which cannot be examined at this stage.
15. The judgments relating to evidentiary value of statements of co- accused and the requirements for proving criminal conspiracy, namely Haricharan Kurmi (supra) and Kehar Singh (supra), also pertain to evaluation of evidence during trial. At the stage of considering a petition for quashing, this Court cannot embark upon a detailed analysis of the evidentiary worth of the material collected by the prosecution.
16. As regards the contention relating to sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC, the question whether the alleged acts were committed in discharge of official duty is also a matter that requires examination of facts and evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in the present proceedings.
17. In view of the above discussion and considering the material collected during investigation, this Court is of the opinion that the case does not fall within the limited parameters where interference under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 would be warranted.
9
18. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the learned trial Court shall decide the case independently on the basis of evidence adduced before it without being influenced by any observations made in this order.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan