Amit Kumar Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 251 Chatt

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


               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

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.

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

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

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

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.

                             Sd/-                               Sd/-
                  (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)                (Ramesh Sinha)
                            Judge                           Chief Justice




Brijmohan