1 2025:CGHC:14428-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1086 of 2025 Narendra Kumar Juneja S/o Late Kishanlal Juneja Aged About 52 Years R/o Jagatpur, Dhimrapur, Raigarh, Police Station City Kotwali, Tehsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Vikram Rateria S/o Natwar Rateria Aged About 39 Years R/o A/902, Signature Magneto Homes Phase-2, Jeevan Vihar Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 26.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Advocate General for the MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.03.26 18:02:52 +0530 2 respondent No.1/ State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “I. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed by the petitioner. II. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the F.I.R. bearing No. 264/2024, registered on 08.10.2024 at Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund, registered under section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner herein and two other accused persons namely Jhulup Kumar Sahu and Shishupal Pradhan, so far as it relates to the petitioner Narendra Kumar Juneja is concerned. I II. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash entire charge sheet/final report bearing No. 274/2024 filed on dated 30.12.2024 before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (State of Chhattisgarh v. Narendra Kumar Juneja & 2 Others) for the offences punishable under section 420 & 120B of Indian Penal Code: IV. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 07.02.2025 (Annexure P/2), passed in Criminal Case No. 42/2025 in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh v. Narendra Kumar Juneja & 2 Others, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saraipali, District Mahasamund has taken cognizance of the impugned Chargesheet and registered the 3 impugned criminal proceeding as Criminal Case no. 42/2025 against the Petitioner. V. And to kindly grant any other relief to the petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case, may also granted to the Petitioner.” 3. Prosecution story in a nutshell is that the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged on the instance of complainant namely Vikram Naretia on 08.10.2024 inter-alia on the allegations that, he had entered into an agreement with one Anant Kumar Mishra and Krishna Prasad Mishra for purchase of the land situates at Orissa admeasuring 100 acres for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acres the agreement was executed on 25.05.2024 and co-accused Shishupal Pradhan and Jhulup Sahu were attesting witnesses of the agreement. It has been further alleged that the cheque of Rs. 3 lacs -3 lacs were paid to the land owners through blank cheques and Rs. 90,000/- cash was paid to Shishupal, but till 08.10.2024 no registered sale deed has been executed. Further, the petitioner has introduced Jhulup Kumar Sahu and Shishupal Pradhan and two other persons have cheated the complainant. It has been further alleged that, the present petitioner and other two witnesses of the agreement have insisted the complainant to invest the amount in the said land. All the three persons have lured to increase land rates to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- per acres and till date not a single penny has been paid and they have cheated the complainant and has caused the loss to the tune Rs. 6,90,000/-. 4 The police has investigated the matter, recorded the statement of the witnesses and collected the documentary evidence and thereafter, filed the final report/challan on 30.12.2024 for the offences punishable under Section 420 & 120B of Indian Penal Code. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law. The complainant is in the business of sale and purchase of the land the petitioner is neither the owner nor the witness to the agreement to sale dated 25.05.2024, the father of the complainant is known to the petitioner and he has shown his interest to purchase the property at Orissa and petitioner has only provided the mobile number of one of the accused namely Shishupal Pradhan the petitioner has no relation with eighter Shishupal Pradhan or Jhulup Kumar Sahu, even he never met with both of them. The petitioner is running a hotel in the name and style of Shri Sai Shraddha and therefore, he was having connection with the persons who are engaged in the business of sale and purchase of land and therefore, the petitioner has provided only the mobile number of the attesting witnesses. Not a single penny has been paid to the petitioner either by the complainant or by his father. The agreement to sale was executed and the other two accused persons are the attesting witnesses of the agreement. The complainant who is the son of Natwar Rateria was pressurizing the petitioner to insist the owners of the property as well as the two witnesses to execute 5 the sale deed in favor of his father, the petitioner has straightway refused to do so and has said that, he has only provided the mobile number of the one witness namely Shishupal Singh. There is no direct allegations against the petitioner that, he had played any role for execution of the forge document or at the time of execution of agreement or its notarization at Saraipali, District Mahasamund, he was present (the petitioner is resident of Korba). No role except the whatsapp chats and brokerage amount and the fact that the petitioner has introduce the accused persons, no other material has been collected. There is no evidence which shows that either the petitioner has cheated the complainant or any amount has been paid to him. The whatsapp conversation of the petitioner and father of the complainant shows that petitioner has nothing to do with the execution of the agreement or the execution of the sale deed. 5. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the submissions and prayer made by the petitioner and submits that in the present matter, charge-sheet has already been filed and the charges are yet to be framed and it has to be investigated and taken to its logical end. He further submits that bare perusal of charge-sheet goes to show that in the statement of complainant Vikram Rateria and his father Natwar Rateria and Subodh Singh, it is mentioned that the petitioner infact has introduce the main accused namely Shishupal Pradhan, Jhulup Kumar Sahu who had executed the forge agreement dated 25.05.2024. It has been 6 alleged that they have paid Rs. 30,000/- (brokerage amount) to the petitioner herein in presence of Subodh Singh. Thus, at this stage, no interference is warranted. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties that the charge-sheet has already been filed, perusal of which goes to show that in the statement of complainant Vikram Rateria and his father Natwar Rateria and Subodh Singh, it is mentioned that the petitioner has introduced the main accused namely Shishupal Pradhan, Jhulup Kumar Sahu who had executed the forge agreement dated 25.05.2024 and that they have paid Rs. 30,000/- (brokerage amount) to the petitioner herein in presence of Subodh Singh hence, no good ground has been raised to interfere in the matter and quash the charge-sheet at this stage as it discloses cognizable offence on the part of the petitioner. 8. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this petition. The petition lacks merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet