1 2025:CGHC:40418-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 971 of 2025 Shrichand Lekhwani S/o Late Gangumal Lekhwani Aged About 64 Years R/o Sindhi Colony, Kanwar Nagar, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station- Mohan Nagar, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ramchand Godwani S/o Late Sirumal Godwani Aged About 55 Years R/o House No. J 529/26, Sadani Nagar, Sindhi Colony, Station Road, Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr.Manoj Paranjape, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.P.R.Patankar, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State For Respondent No.2 : : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Mr.Shudhanshu Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 12.08.2025 1. Heard Mr.Manoj Paranjape, learned Senior Advocate assisted by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.08.12 18:06:19 +0530 2 Mr.P.R.Patankar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr.Shudhanshu Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the following prayer: “A. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the impugned F.I.R. bearing No. 56/2025 registered at Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg, District Durg on 22.02.2025 and registered on the instance of the respondent No. 2/complainant for the offences punishable under Section 420 Indian Penal Code, in pursuance of the order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg dated 04.02.2025 in MJC Criminal 1669/2025. B. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G) dated 4.2.2025 in MJC Criminal 1669/2025 (Ramchand Godwani Vs. Shrichand Lekhwani) preferred by the Respondent No.2 under section 156(3) of CRPC. C. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are that the 3 petitioner is a Chartered Accountant by Profession practicing since last forty years. The petitioner is son-in-law of the family of respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 has been availing professional services from the petitioner since the year 2002 continuously till FY 2022-23 without any trouble or issue. A revenue case was pending between the wife of the petitioner and family members of real brother of respondent No 2. Respondent No. 2 being closer to the Brother's family and in order to put pressure had filed a complaint against the petitioner on 13.03.2024 before the Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg (C.G) alleging that the petitioner has not at all paid the tax for FY 22-23 from the cheque amount of Rs 5,36,160/- given by him and the petitioner is not returning the documents. 4. The true fact is that respondent No.2 had approached the Petitioner on 21.07.2023 for working out and filing the return for the financial year 2022-2023. The tax was calculated on the basis of details provided by respondent no.2, which worked out to be Rs.5,36,160/-. Respondent No 2 visited on 25.07.2023 and requested to accept a cheque of Rs. 5,36,160/-. The petitioner informed him that if respondent No.2 has incurred any expenditure like brokerage typing, registration expenses etc. on sale of land as well as while purchase of land, these can be claimed and gain will be reduced and may result in reduction in tax liability. Therefore, respondent No 2 was asked to hold the cheque. However, being relative, 21 years old client, transaction 4 through cheque, final date of return filing being very near, final working of tax amount may take some more time and clearing of cheque also may take time, therefore, respondent No2 himself requested the petitioner to deposit the cheque into bank account. Subsequently on 31.07.2023, based upon further details of expenses on sale of land as well as details of expenses while purchase of land provided by respondent No.2 with the professional acumen of the petitioner, final computation of total income and the resultant tax liability worked out to be Rs. 3,90,000/- to which respondent No.2 happily agreed and asked the petitioner to pay the same. 5. Respondent No. 2 was asked to take back the remaining amount, however, he himself requested to hold the same for the reasons that the petitioner fees is pending and income tax return of his wife is also pending and also let his claim of expenses on sale and purchase of land be accepted and scrutiny time period of income tax department be over, otherwise he may have to come back again to the petitioner with request to pay further challan, if any, due to non acceptance of his claim of expenses. Respondent No 2 assured to revisit the petitioner for filing of return of his wife and settle balance as per his convenience. 6. Respondent No.2 was called on 29.02.2024 and again on 01.03.2024 from the office of the petitioner with a request that income tax of his wife is still pending. Respondent No 2 visited the 5 office of the petitioner on 06.03.2024 and collected documents of his wife. To extend favour to his brother's family and to put pressure on the petitioner family in the Revenue case, respondent No.2 made a complaint before Police Station, Mohan Nagar, Durg (C.G) on 13.3.2024 alleging that the petitioner has not at all paid the tax out of cheque given by him and is not returning the documents and with the same motive and to defame the petitioner, respondent No.2 posted the copy of police complaint in social media on 14.03.2024. 7. On 14.03.2024 the police had intimated the petitioner about the complaint filed by respondent No.2 and directed the petitioner to appear. The petitioner appeared and replied on 15.03.2024 that he has duly paid the challan, submitting copy of challan paid and assertion that he had always been prepared to return any and every documents. On 15.03.2024, the petitioner sent copy of challan, reply letter and cheque of Rs.146,160/- to respondent No 2 through tegistered post and on the same day, the petitioner posted a letter, copy of challan, copy of cheque to respondent No. 2 in whatsapp, duly seen by him. On 16.03.2024, when came to know on internet, that registered post sent to respondent No.2 is returning unclaimed, the petitioner transferred Rs.1,46,160/- in the bank account of respondent No2 through NEFT showing his good intention and clarity. 8. Surprisingly, despite of receiving Rs.146,160/- and no amount 6 outstanding, respondent No. 2 without ascertaining the police action on his complaint, within 6 days of police complaint, filed a complaint before the Jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC on 19.03.2024 on an improved story which was different from police complaint dated 13.03.2024 preferred by him with a lot of false statements and suppression. On 21.06.2024, the police called the petitioner for statement which he did and gave all the documents and details called for. On the other hand, on 21.06.2024, respondent No 2 lied in his statement before the police that Rs.1,46,160/- has not been received by him. However, the same has duly been credited in his bank account long back on 16.03.2024. On 22.06.2024, the police has submitted its report to the court with conclusion "On the basis of complete enquiry, statement against the Petitioner and evidences, no crime is found”, but surprisingly, the petitioner had come to know that vide order dated 4.2.2025, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg has passed an order whereby the police has been directed to register First Information Report against the petitioner. The order is passed without following the procedure, without looking at the police complaint, without looking at the Police Report, without hearing the Petitioner and is passed with following suppression during arguments by respondent No 2. 9. On the basis of order of learned Judicial Magistrate dated 4.2.2025, the Police Station Mohan Nagar has registered a First Information report bearing Crime No.56/2025 dated 12.2.2025 7 against the petitioner under Section 420 of the IPC. Hence the present petition 10. Learned Senior Advocate assisted by learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 04.02.2025 as also the First Information Report dated 12.02.2025 is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the well established law. The entire proceedings have been initiated by respondent No. 2 under the influence of his nephews with an ulterior motive to harass and defame the petitioner and as the counterblast of the civil proceedings initiated by the wife of the petitioner for a land which was given to the wife of the petitioner in will by her cousin brother who also happens to be the brother of respondent No.2. He further submits that in respect of the proceedings initiated by the wife of the petitioner against the nephew of respondent No.2, a first information report bearing No. 486/2024 has been registered by the City Kotwali Police Station under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC. He also submits that in the complaint preferred before the police on 13.03.2024, respondent No.2 had stated that the petitioner has not paid the tax at all and is not returning the documents, but within 06 days only, on 19.03.2024, without inquiring and waiting for the police action on the complaint, and even after having received back the amount of Rs. 146,160/- in his bank account, for the reason to create pressure on the petitioner, respondent No.2 preferred an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC before the concerned Magistrate and 8 while filing the application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC before the concerned Magistrate, respondent No.2 has improved the version and has stated that the cheque was received to defraud respondent No.2. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned FIR bearing Crime.No.56/2025 registered at Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg on 12.02.2025 for offence under Section 420 of the IPC on the basis of the order dated 4.2.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg in MJC Criminal No.1669/2025 by which the JMFC has allowed the application filed by respondent No.2 under Section 156(3) CrPC, deserves to be set aside. 11. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that learned JMFC, Durg after considering the material available on record has rightly directed for registration of FIR against the petitioner. As such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with these petitions. 13. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down the principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first 9 information report and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the report, their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised, which are as under: - “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 10 (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the 11 extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 14. The Supreme Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Sharma and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2016) 9 SCC 1 held as under:- “35. While discussing the scope and ambit of Section 482 of the Code, a similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Kal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 wherein it was held as under:- “29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the 12 material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity 13 of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC: 30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? 30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such 14 exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arisingt therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 15. In the matter of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673, the Supreme Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. It was held as under: “12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.” 15 (emphasis supplied) 16. Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), the Supreme Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 626, observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it was again held that where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be quashed, by exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 17. From perusal of the pleadings and documents, it transpires that the entire proceedings have been initiated by respondent No. 2 under the influence of his nephew with an ulterior motive to harass and defame the petitioner and as the counterblast of the civil proceedings initiated by the wife of the petitioner for a land which was given to the wife of the petitioner in Will by her cousin brother who also happens to be the brother of respondent No.2. It further transpires that in respect of the proceedings initiated by the wife of the petitioner against the nephew of respondent No.2, a first information report bearing Crime No.486/2024 has been registered by City Kotwali Police Station under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC, in the complaint preferred before the police on 13.03.2024, respondent No.2 had stated that the petitioner has not paid the tax at all and is not returning the 16 documents, but within 06 days only, on 19.03.2024, without inquiring and waiting for the police action on the complaint, and even after having received back the amount of Rs.146,160/- in his bank account, for the reason to create pressure on the petitioner preferred an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg and while filing the application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC before the JMFC, Durg, respondent No.2 has improved the version and has stated that the cheque was received to defraud respondent No.2. 18. To constitute an offence under Section 420 of the IPC, delivery of property is a sine qua non for the purpose of inducement and the complainant / respondent No.2 did not avert anything that how the petitioner has wrongfully induced the complainant and property has been delivered due to inducement and the petitioner has put into wrongful loss or wrongful gain. Hence, the allegations made in the impugned FIR are absurd and do not constitute a cognizable offence. 19. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-stated judgments (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the allegations made in the FIR are inherently improbable and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the petitioner herein. In the case in hand, malicious prosecution was 17 instituted by respondent No.2 against the petitioner. 20. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned FIR registered in Crime No.56/2025 at Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg on 12.02.2025 for offence under Section 420 of the IPC against the petitioner on the basis of the order dated 4.2.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg in MJC Criminal No.1669/2025 by which the JMFC has allowed the application filed by respondent No.2 under Section 156(3) CrPC is hereby set-aside. 21. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Sd/-- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu