Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Where Allegations against MNREGA Mates Fail to Establish Prima Facie Forgery or Misappropriation

The petitioners, working as "mates" under the MNREGA scheme in Gram Panchayat Sunderkera, were accused of preparing forged muster rolls for pond excavation work between April 6, 2016, and April 19, 2016.

Based on a report by the CEO of Janpad Panchayat Abhanpur, an FIR (No. 388/2019) was registered under Sections 466, 467, 468, and 34 of the IPC.

A charge-sheet was filed on August 25, 2020, leading to Criminal Case No. 637/2020.

The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings, arguing that their role was limited to marking attendance and that a similarly situated co-accused, Radheshyam Sahu, had already had his proceedings quashed by the High Court in 2025.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR and charge-sheet, taken at face value, disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners for forgery and criminal conspiracy.

2. Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners constitutes an abuse of the process of law, justifying exercise of power under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.).

The court primarily applied the principles of law established by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) 1 SCC 335, which permits the exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice, specifically where allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence or are inherently improbable.

It further considered the principle of parity in judicial outcomes regarding the quashing of proceedings for similarly situated co-accused persons.

The court observed that the petitioners’ role was strictly ministerial—acting as "mates" responsible only for marking attendance—and they lacked authority over the sanction or disbursement of public funds.

The court found that the prosecution failed to provide specific, cogent, or legally admissible material to establish mens rea, wrongful gain, or an overt act of forgery or conspiracy.

The court noted that the allegations were "general and omnibus" and relied on presumptions rather than substantive evidence.

Consequently, forcing the petitioners to face trial would be vexatious and a miscarriage of justice.

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 388/2019, the charge-sheet dated August 25, 2020, and all consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No. 637/2020 pending before the JMFC, Raipur, specifically as they related to the two petitioners.