1 2025:CGHC:17067-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1296 of 2025 1 - Suresh Chandra Agrawal S/o Shri Ramchandra Agrawal Aged About 64 Years R/o Sada Colony Jamnipali, Korba, District Korba, C.G. 2 - Madhur Agrawal S/o Shri Suresh Chandra Agrawal Aged About 39 Years R/o Sada Colony Jamnipali, Korba, District Korba, C.G. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Mahesh Shukla S/o Suryapal Sukla Aged About 46 Years Owner of Shukla Associates (Tent And Catering), Boirdadar, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.), (Complainant In The Instant Crime) ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15.04.2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through Video Conferencing. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.04.17 10:14:31 +0530 2 2. Heard Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent. 3. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘B.N.S.S.’) by the petitioner with the following prayers:- “It, is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition and Consequently quash the F.I.R. no. 380/2021 registered with the P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, District -Raigarh (C.G.) by the Respondent No.1 on 02.07.2021, further quash Chargesheet bearing no. 517/2021 dated 16.12.2021 (ANNEXURE P-1) for offence punishable under section 420, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and also quash the order taking cognizance dated 07.12.2021 passed in Criminal Case No. 430/2022, as well the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 430/2022 pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh (C.G.) against the petitioners pursuant to the aforesaid chargesheet, in the interest of justice. And/or any other relief/ relief's which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may please be also granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 3 4. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioners are father and son respectively and the petitioner No.1 is an old age person who has no connection with the business carried out by his son through Proprietorship firm (petitioner No.2). Petitioner No.2 is registered Class- A Contractor with the Government of Chhattisgarh and is the sole proprietor of the Firm named and styled as "Buldelkhand Engineers". The petitioner No.2 was awarded work with respect to construction of roads and related facilities inside plant for Coal unloading by truck in Lara Super Thermal Power Project of NTPC limited having its works in Village Chhapora, P.S. Pusore, District Raigarh (C.G.) vide work order dated 11-08-2017. Pursuant to the issuance of work order, the petitioner No.2 started the work and for construction of road at the project side, excavation of mud and leveling was to be done, hence the complainant, who owns the JCB Machine (Pay Loader) was requested to engage his machine and carry out the work of excavation. It is submitted that it was agreed that an amount of Rs.45,000/- per month would be paid to the complainant/respondent No.2 for the said works. The complainant started the work and performed the same for good two months, thereafter the JCB machine broke-down. It is submitted that the complainant raised invoice for two months of the work done by him vide invoice dated 05-07-2018 and 06-09-2018. Petitioner No.2 immediately after received of bills cleared the same through cheque. The JCB Machine of the complainant was not in a working condition, a request was made to the complainant to take back the same from the NTPC Lara Project Site. Inspite of repeated requests, the complainant did not 4 take the vehicle back and the same was lying at the plant site. 5. Thereafter, on 29.01.2019, the complainant moved an application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate Raigarh praying for issuance of search warrant under Sections 94, 97 & 98 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.”). Petitioner No.2 challenged the registration of the Miscellaneous Criminal Case by the S.D.M. Raigarh before the Sessions Court Raigarh by filing Criminal Revision. The 4th Additional Sessions Judge Raigarh vide order dated 27.08.2019 in Criminal Revision No.26/2019, allowed the revision filed by the petitioner No.2. Thereafter, the complainant moved written complaint before the Police of Police Station Pusore, District Raigarh on 13.09.2019 against the petitioner No.2, Sachin Singh and one M.A.Ansari employee of NTPC Lara. The Police after going through the matter found that no offence is made out as the same is purely a dispute arising out business transaction and gave the complainant NCR under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. The complainant submitted written complainant before the Additional Superintendent of Police Raigarh on 23.10.2019 and thereafter the complainant made a written compliant before the police on 02.07.2021 before the Police of Police Station Chakradhar Nagar without disclosing the correct facts alleging that he is owner of a Loader Machine (JCB), which the petitioners who are Directors of Bundelkhand Engineering have taken on monthly rent of Rs.80,000/- for their construction works. 6. Subsequently, neither they gave rent nor picked his phone call and 5 later stated that they will make payment of entire rent and also will return the JCB machine but have left the machine at NTPC Lara after completing their work and have committed cheating and the police without enquiring the matter, straightaway registered the offences under Section 420, 34 of IPC vide Crime No.380/2021 against the petitioners. 7. The petitioners being aggrieved preferred criminal miscellaneous petition before this Hon'ble Court for quashing of FIR which is essentially a civil dispute bearing CRMP No.1362/2021 wherein the Court issued notices to the respondents and subsequently vide order dated 14.06.2022 after hearing the parties was granted interim relief in favour of petitioners directing that no further proceedings, pursuant to the FIR bearing No.0380 dated 02.07.2021, shall be carried out, till the next date of hearing. 8. Subsequently when the matter came up for hearing and as the charge-sheet had already been filed in the case, the Hon'ble Court dismissed the petition granting liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to law vide order dated 18.03.2025. After filing of the charge-sheet in the instant crime before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, the Court had taken the cognizance of the case on 07.12.2021 and criminal case was registered bearing Criminal Case No.430/2022 and the case was put to trial. As per the present status of the trial, the charges have not been framed before the learned Court below. 9. Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely been implicated in the 6 crime in question by the complainant and all the allegations levelled against the petitioner are fake, vague and are an afterthought just to harass petitioners. He further submits that the registration of the First Information Report against the petitioners and subsequent filing of charge-sheet has been done without there being any enquiry or investigation with regard to the delay and previous proceedings, which is totally illegal and arbitrary. It has been contended that the registration of FIR by the complainant against the petitioners on a false and fabricated allegations driven by vindictive motive is sheer abuse of process of law and hence, liable to be quashed. It has been further contended that the complainant without disclosing the correct facts before the police of Police Station- Chakradharnagar was successful in getting the FIR registered against the present petitioners and suppressing all the said facts even subsequently the charge-sheet has been filed. It has been argued that from the plain reading in the FIR and the material brought on record in the charge-sheet, it would be clear that the complainant had suppressed the material facts and has been successful in getting the offence registered only as an arm twisting method for settling civil disputes. There are grave contradictions in the various complaints and applications moved by the complainant before the Judicial authorities as well as the police officials and the police ought to have enquired the matter before the Registration of offence and during investigation. It has been further argued that there is a huge delay of three years in lodging of FIR by the complainant without any justification then also the same was entertained for extraneous reasons. 7 In the earlier complaints/applications preferred by him, the complainant has nowhere named the petitioner No.1 as he was not having any relation with the business transaction, however, the police without ascertaining the correct fact, have proceeded and filed charge-sheet even against the petitioner no.1. The petitioner No.1 has nothing to do with the business of his son, yet he has been arrayed as an accused in the present case. The complainant has not challenged outcome of the judicial proceedings i.e. the order passed in revision dated 27.08.2019 nor has preferred any criminal complaint before the competent court after receiving the memo under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. and has managed to get the offences registered against the petitioners. It has been submitted that the complainant himself did not took his vehicle back and the same was lying in NTPC Lara Project Site, which was subsequently seized by the police from the site itself and was even taken by the complainant in supurdnama which clearly shows that the vehicle has never been detained by the petitioners. The complainant himself was aware of his vehicle lying at site and not being used for which reason only the period the same were used bills were raised by the complainant and same were paid and subsequent thereto no bill was ever raised which makes the allegations made in the FIR and charge-sheet absurd to the extent that no prudent man can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners. Reliance has been placed in the matters of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and others v. State of Bihar and another reported in (2000) 4 SCC 168, M/s Indian Oil Corporation v. M/s. NEPC India Ltd 8 and others reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736, Prof. R. K. Vijayasarathy and another v. Sudha Seetharam and another reported in (2019) SCC Online SC 208, Randheer Singh v. The State of U.P. and others reported in AIR Online 2021 SC 956 and Naresh Kumar v. State of Karnataka reported in AIR Online 2024 SC 251, to buttress his submissions. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer, opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the FIR and charge-sheet disclose the cognizable offence against the petitioners. He further submits that this is second round of litigation. Earlier the petitioners have preferred a petition being CRMP No.1362/2021, in which interim order was passed on 14.06.2022 and the charge-sheet had been filed on 07.12.2021 which reflects that learned counsel for the petitioners had suppressed the material fact when the case was heard on 14.06.2022 that the charge-sheet had been filed on 07.12.2021 and the petitioners had been granted stay to the effect that no further proceedings, pursuant to the FIR bearing No.0380 dated 02.07.2021, shall be carried out, till the next date of hearing. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 12. 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 9 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. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.). 13. In the well celebrated judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 605, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Guidelines are as follows: “(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 to 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 10 within the purview of Section 156(2) of the Code. (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 every 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 11 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.” 14. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Supreme Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 12 15. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.) 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 FIR in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of B.N.S.S.), only has to consider whether or not the allegations of FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. Further, while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (now 528 of B.N.S.S.) , final conclusions are as under:- “i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevantprovisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; 13 iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; 14 ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds 15 that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of 16 a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the accused should be relegated to 17 apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps” either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/ disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an 18 interim order. xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of “no coercive steps to be adopted” within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by “no coercive steps to be adopted” as the term “no coercive steps to be adopted” can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied.” 16. Keeping in view the aforesaid law and considering the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the submissions raised by learned counsel for petitioner relate to the questions of fact, and thus, can not be examined by this Court in proceedings under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. The appreciation of evidence or the reliability of the allegations cannot be examined at this stage. 17. It has been reflected from the record that earlier the petition being CRMP No.1362/2021 has been filed challenging the first FIR dated 02.07.2021 bearing Crime No.0380/2021 and the learned counsel for the petitioners had suppressed the material fact that the charge-sheet had been filed on 07.12.2021 when the case was called out for hearing on 14.06.2022, on which date, interim order was passed in favour of the petitioners to the effect that no further proceedings, pursuant to the FIR 19 bearing No.0380 dated 02.07.2021, shall be carried out, till the next date of hearing. It has been further reflected from the record that the said CRMP No.1362/2021 has been dismissed vide order dated 18.03.2025 observing that “Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that investigation is completed and charge-sheet has been filed, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter and quash the FIR. 18. From perusal of the charge-sheet, it transpires that the complainant Mahesh Shukla resident of Boiswadar had purchased JCB machine bearing registration No.CG 04 DT 0174 by taking a loan of Rs.18,50,000/- from HDFC Bank Raigarh, which the accused Suresh Agarwal and his partner son Madhur Agarwal, posing as the director of their company M/s Bundelkhand Engineer for civil work, took the said vehicle from Boiswadar in the year 2018 by promising to pay Rs.80,000/- on monthly rent. When he asked to execute the contract, they kept on making excuses and did not execute any kind of contract regarding taking the JCB machine and paying rent. The said machine was installed in NTPC Lara on 17.07.2018 by M/s Bundelkhand Engineer firm for its civil construction work and started construction work in the said loader and received Rs.2,79,13,430/- from NTPC Lara, but the complainant Mahesh Shukla was not paid the rent amount. The payment was to be made every month, but the payment was not made and the said JCB machine was not returned. On the report of Mahesh Shukla, a case bearing Crime No.380/2021 for the offence under Sections 420, 34 IPC was registered against the accused Suresh 20 Agarwal and Madhur Agarwal at Chakdharnagar police station and investigation proceedings were carried out. During the investigation, the machine related to the case was seized from NTPC Lara premises. During the investigation, the battery and other spare parts of the machine were also found to have been replaced, on which , offence under Section 406 IPC was added in the case. On complete investigation, the accused were found guilty of the crime under Sections 420, 406 34 IPC and were arrested. It has been further mentioned htat they were released on bail bond of Rs.25,000/- each after getting bail vide MCRC No.1270/2021 from the Hon’ble High Court and after completion of investigation, the challan form was prepared vide No.517/2021 dated 16.12.2021. 19. From the above stated case laws, it is apparent that the above stated contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners can not be examined by this Court. The adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. In view of the material on record, it can not be held that the impugned criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. FIR or criminal proceedings can be quashed only in accordance with parameters laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. 21 20. The Courts should oust and obstruct unscrupulous litigants from invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court on the drop of a hat to file an application for quashing of launching an FIR or investigation and then seek relief by an interim order. It is the obligation of the Court to keep such unprincipled and unethical litigants at bay. It is intellectual truancy to avoid the precedents and issue directions which are not in consonance with law. It is the duty of a Judge to sustain the judicial balance and not to think of an order which can cause trauma to the process of adjudication. It should be borne in mind that the culture of adjudication is stabilised when intellectual discipline is maintained and further when such discipline constantly keeps guard on the mind. 21. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly from the perusal of the FIR lodged by the complainant as well as charge-sheet, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out and as such, the present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction to quash the impugned FIR as well as further proceedings of the case. 22. In view of the aforesaid, the petition lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. 23. The instant Cr.M.P. filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu