1 2025:CGHC:23276-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1802 of 2025 1 Amit Kumar Chowdhury S/o Dinesh Chandra Chowdhury Aged About 70 Years R/o 60/01, Arunachal Post And Thana- Rahra, District 24 Pargana, West Bengal. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12/06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Sudhir Sharma, learned counsels for the Applicant. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents / State. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13 10:55:04 +0530 2 2. The instant CRMP has been filed under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahinta for quashing of FIR No. 158/2017 registered on 09.11.2017 Under Section U/S 420, 34 Of IPC & Section 10 of Protection Of Depositors Interest Act, 2005 in Police Station Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur, Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 3. The CRMP is filed for following relief:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly kindly, be pleased to quash FIR No. 158/2017, registered on dated 09.11.2017 for commission of offence offence U/s 420, 34 of IPC & section 10 of protection of depositors interest act, 2005 in Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh and the subsequent proceedings initiated pursuant thereto including the charge sheet no. 125A/2023 filed on 28.04.2023, pending for consideration before the Sessions Judge Ramanujganj, in the interest of justice” 4. The facts of the case is that the complainant had deposited Rs.75,000/- in Sant Plant Agro Limited and Business Limited Company at Wadrafnagar Road and the present applicant along with the other co-accused, who were agents of the said Company, had assured him of doubling the said amount on its maturity and when he demanded the same after its maturity, they kept on giving false assurances and later, ran away, therefore, the offence as aforesaid has been registered against the present Applicant and other co-accused. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has 3 been falsely implicated in the case without any evidence and submits that he was not the Director of the company at the time of the incident. He further submits that there is delay of almost 5 years in lodging of complaint. He further submits that from the entire facts and circumstances, it can be seen that no offence under Section 420, 34 of IPC and Section 10 of Protection of depositors Interest Act, 2005 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner as in the entire complaint and prays that FIR against the petitioner be quashed. 6. Per Contra, learned State counsel would oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that in the case in hand, fraud has been played with the depositors and further submits that the supplementary charge-sheet has also been filed before the concerned competent court and one of the seizure witness i.e. Vinod Baig has also been examined. Hence, FIR cannot be quashed at this juncture. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 8. Prima-facie, this Court found that the applicant has come up before this Court for quashment of FIR, which was registered by the complainant on 09.11.2017 for the incident which occurred in the year 2014. Further, it transpires from the record that the applicant was not named in the FIR and subsequently after investigation he has been named in the FIR. It also transpires that 4 subsequent charge sheet has also been filed against the applicant and the same is also under challenge before this court. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties; the allegations leveled against the applicant that he has taken money from the depositors and played fraud and particularly considering the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed and the fact that charges have been framed and one seizure witness has also been examined, as such, this Court does not find any good ground to quash the FIR at this stage. 10. In view of the above, the CRMP is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ $ Bhilwar