1 2025:CGHC:3383-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 805 of 2020 1 - Vijay Kumar Das S/o Shri R.B. Das Aged About 44 Years R/o D - 13 Near Mining Office, Parshuram Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Of Police Station Moudhapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shri Bhupendra Singh Atbhaiya S/o Shri Kunwar Singh Atbhaiya C/o Satguru Furniture Main Road, Bajrang Nagar Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, P.L. for the State. Ms. Fourzia Miraza, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate for Res. No. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 20 .01.2025 2 1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR of Crime No. 52/2020 registered at Police Station Maudhapara, Dist- Raipur and prayed for following relief in the petition:- “ It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash FIR dated 19.05.2020 bearing number 52/2020 under Sections 406 of the IPC registered by Police of P.S. Maudhapara, Dist- Raipur (CG) at the instance of respondent No. 2 and all consequential proceedings pending against the petitioner to secure the ends of justice. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant ends of justice. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deem fit, in the interest of justice.” 2. The brief facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings and document annexed with the petition are that on 14.02.2020, the complainant/ respondent No. 2 has made a written complaint to the Police with the allegation that he introduced with the petitioner who is an advocate, with respect to the Insurance of his vehicles and labourers. Since he was in shortage of money, during the demonetization, he borrowed Rs. 2,50,000/- cash in the month of December, 2016 and Rs. 2,50,000/- through cheque in the month of April, 2017 from the petitioner with the condition that he will pay the interest @ 5%. The petitioner, in lieu of repayment of borrowed amount, has obtained 10 blank cheques from respondent No. 2 which was of State Bank of India, MG Road Branch. He repaid the entire amount to the petitioner and despite that he has not returned his blank cheques and ensured him that he destroyed the cheques by burning it. On 14.02.2020, he received an sms from his bank in his mobile phone that one Dilip Singh has produced his cheque No. 512179 amounting to Rs. 84,000/- for its clearance. 3 He immediately instructed the bank to stop payment. He neither knows the Dilip Singh nor he met him ever. 3. After preliminary inquiry, the Police has registered the offence under Section 406 of IPC against the petitioner vide Crime No. 52 of 2020 at P.S. Maudhapara, Raipur which is under Challenge in the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the FIR has been lodged by the complainant with oblique motive and only to extort money from the petitioner. From the entire material collected during the investigation, no any cognizable offence appears to be made out against the petitioner which could be sufficient to register the FIR and it is purely a civil transaction and only to avoid his liability to repay the amount to the petitioner, he has lodged the report. The complainant has no cause of action until the petitioner or the person concerned has filed any complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The contents of FIR clearly reflects that it is purely a contractual matter which has been give a color of criminality, therefore, the FIR against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that Respondent No. 2 had given 10 blank cheques to the petitioner when he borrowed Rs. 5 lakh from him and even after repayment of the said borrowed amount. He has not returned the cheque and ensured that he destroyed the cheques. She would further submit that the petitioner has suppressed the fact that after receiving his money back from the respondent No. 2, he executed an acknowledgment to the respondent No. 2 with the effect that on return of his amount, the said cheque no. 996175 has been burnt yet he with connivance with the said Dilip Singh produced the said cheque with the bank for which the respondent No. 2 has immediately instructed the bank for stop 4 payment. The Police has duly inquired the matter and after considering the cognizable offence is prima facie appears, registered FIR against the petitioner. There are disputed question of facts which are required proper investigation and at this stage, it cannot be said that the complaint made by the complainant is false or suffers from any infirmity. 6. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent would submit that once the FIR has been registered, it has to be investigated and taken to its logical end. He further submit on instruction dated 18.01.2025 obtained from P.S. Maudhapara, Raipur that investigation of the case is completed and final report is likely to be filed in near future. Thus, at this stage, no interference is warranted in view of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021 (M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others) and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR and document annexed with the petition. 8. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if 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, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 9. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with 5 circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 10. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the document annexed with the petition, and further in view of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Neeharika (supra), we do not find any good ground to interefere in the matter and to quash the FIR. The matter needs investigation which is going on by the Police authorities and the same is required to come into a logical end and the same needs to come a logical end, therefore, we are of the opinion that no merits in the present petition and the same is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika