1 2025:CGHC:20108-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1432 of 2025 Khilawan Prasad Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Ubhay Kumar Chandrakar Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Mudkhusra, P.S. Dondi Lohara, District Balod (C.G.) And Presently Residing At Ward No. 2, Marapara, District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Mangchuwa, District Balod Chhattisgarh 2 - Ghanshyam Sahu S/o Ramsingh Sahu R/o Village Kartutola, Mangchuwa-Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Love Kumar Ramteke, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 02.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. Love Kumar Ramteke, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.05.05 11:18:57 +0530 2 Lawyer for the respondent No.1 / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR No. 0002/2024, dated 12.01.2024 registered by Police Station Mungchuwa-Balod, District- Balod Chhattisgarh under Section 420 I.P.C., against the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. Prosecution story in brief is that complainant has lodged the said FIR at the Respondent Police Station alleging that in the year 2019, petitioner introduced himself as a Media Person and claiming to be a relative of the then Chief Minister of the State of Chhattisgarh has assured the complainant that he has strong connection in the Mantralaya and he will get a government job for his son. Based on the assurance made by the petitioner, on 29.08.2019, the complainant has deposited Rs.50,000/- in the account of petitioner’s wife through UPI and thereafter, complainant has paid 6.50 Lacs in cash to the petitioner near Keshariya Hotel, Dondi Lohara in the presence of Ishwar Sahu and Ramratan assuring him that government job for his son is final. But when no appointment letter is handed over to the complainant even after passing considerable time period, he enquired with the petitioner about the govt. job to which the petitioner had no satisfactory answer and he even stopped picking up calls of the complainant and then the complainant got to know that he has been cheated. Based on the above information, the 3 Respondent Police registered FIR under Section 420 of IPC, 1860. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner is innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged against them. The petitioner has not committed any such type of offence punishable under section 420 of I.P.C. The respondent No.2 has admitted that he has deposited Rs. 50,000/- in the account No. 520441033445966 (IMPS RRN: 920807710750) of petitioner’s wife Kamleshwari Chandrakar in the bank account of Bank of India, Balod. The petitioner’s wife Kamleshwari Chandrakar has deposited the amount of Rs. 50,000/- from her bank account with Bank of India, Balod to the UPIAR/808294003004/DR/Bank Acc/ICICI/328201000260@I Bank account of respondent No.2 on 28/03/2025. Further, there has been no transaction of any kind between the petitioner and the complainant respondent No. 2. The respondent No.2 only wants to harass the present petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 / State opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that once the FIR has been registered, it has to be investigated and taken to its logical end. Thus, at this stage, no interference is warranted. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani reported in (2017) 2 SCC 4 779, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that inherent power in a matter of quashment of FIR has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and when and only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in the provision itself. He would further rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, wherein the Supreme Court has laid down that 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 a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations made out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR. Therefore, in the light of the above mentioned judgments, the instant petition is absolutely misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned State Counsel also submits that mere perusal of FIR goes to show that in the year 2019, the petitioner told complainant that he always keep coming to the Ministry Raipur and have got many people a job, I will also get your son Goyal Kumar Sahu a job at a good post in the ministry, advertisements keep coming out. Believing in the words of the petitioner, on his instructions, respondent No.2 paid Rs 50,000/- through internet application 5 from his ICICI Bank Acc No. 328201000260 to his wife Kamleshwari Chandrakar's bank account (MMT/IMPS- 920807710750) on 29.07.2019. The petitioner further said that complainant’s son Goyal Sahu's job has been confirmed. The joining letter is ready, the officers are required to pay the remaining amount in cash. Then the petitioner withdrew Rs. 6.50 lakhs from his ICICI Bank account number 328205001201, current account bank branch Balod and gave cash to the petitioner along with Ishwar Sahu, resident of village Pararas Balod on 11.06.2021 near Kesariya Hotel at Dondilohara bus stand. Petitioner assured that within two days, complainant’s son will get the joining letter for the job in the ministry. In this way, petitioner has cheated the complainant by illegally taking 7 lakh rupees in the name of getting his son Goyal Kumar Sahu a job and not returning the money. On the application, the case was found to be fraudulent, Crime No. 02/2024 under Section 420 IPC was registered and the matter is still under investigation and needs to be brought to its logical end. 7. Learned State counsel further submits that a letter has received from the Office of Station House Officer, Police Station- Mangchuwa, District- Balod (C.G.) on 02.05.2025, perusal of the which goes to show that he is absconding from his native village Mudkhusara and rented house in Madhu Chowk Balod. His family members and his female friend Meena Sahu, resident of village Medhaki, were interrogated, who said that they have no 6 information regarding the accused Khilawan Chandrakar. Correspondence was made to Cyber Cell Balod regarding wanting the CDR and cafe of the accused's mobile number 9516931500. The said mobile number is said to be switched off. Correspondence was made to Cyber Cell Balod regarding wanting the CDR and cafe of Khilawan Chandrakar's wife Kamleshwari Chandrakar's, Mobile No. 6267452362. It was found that there was no conversation with the petitioner’s Mobile No. 9516931500. At present, petitioner Khilawan Chandrakar is absconding from his residence Mudkhusara and rented house at Madhu Chowk Balod. In connection with which, investigation was done by going to the residence of accused Khilawan Chandrakar in village Mudkhusara and interrogating the people in the neighbourhood. When accused Khilawan Chandrakar was not found present in his village residence, absconding panchnama of accused Khilawan Chandrakar was prepared as per the absconding panchnama proforma in front of witnesses. Information regarding movable and immovable assets of accused Khilawan Chandrakar has been obtained from tehsil office Deori. In the case of accused Khilawan Chandrakar being absconding since the date of the incident, a report is prepared and sent to the senior authorities to obtain permission to present a challan against accused Khilawan Chandrakar for absconding. The search for the address of accused Khilawan Chandrakar is ongoing. 7 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in this petition. 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Neharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with 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. (Now Section 528 of the BNSS) is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Supreme 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. (Now Section 528 of the BNSS), 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 advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records and further the allegations levelled against the petitioner, who committed fraud with the complainant by luring him and cheating him for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-, on the pretext of providing job to the son of the complainant in the Ministry, F.I.R. discloses the commission of a 8 cognizable offence against the petitioner and hence, no good ground has been raised to interfere in the matter and quash the FIR at this stage as the investigation has to be concluded and taken to its logical end. 11. 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. 12. Before parting with the case, we are little disturbed today with the fact that the Investigating Officer has kept the matter pending for investigation for last more than a year and today when the matter has come up before this court, learned State counsel has produced a communication from the concerned Police Station dated 02.05.2025 transpiring that the Final Report could not be submitted against the petitioner as he is absconding and further, he has prepared an absconding panchnama on 10.05.2025 and he has further sought advice from the concerned Additional S.P. 13. This Court finds it very disturbing that time and again, many cases have appeared before this Court where investigation is pending for several years. The Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh was earlier also called upon by this Court vide order dated 17.04.2025 in CRMP No. 1321 of 2025, to explain as to under which provision of law, the final reports are kept pending and is not being forwarded to the Court concerned stating that the accused are absconding, in compliance of which, an affidavit was filed by the DGP in the said case, relevant para of which is extracted hereinbelow:- 9 “13. It is respectfully submitted that, the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Bilaspur, not being satisfied with the reply given by the SHOs and IOs has constituted departmental enquiry against Faizul Hoda Shah (SHO of Police Station Sarkanda, at the relevant time), Parivesh Tiwari (SHO of Police Station Sarkanda, at the relevant time) and Investigating Officer, ASI, Sunita Ajgalle, vide order dated 23/04/2025. Copy of order dated 23/04/2025 is being filed and annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A-7 for the kind reference of this Hon'ble Court. . It is submitted that, as per the best information of the deponent herein, there is no provision, which requires the Investigating Officer to wait for the presence of accused for filing the final report. It is submitted that, the respondent police authorities have filed the chargesheet before the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, against the absconding accused/petitioner on 23/04/2025 under Section 299 of Cr.P.C.. Copy of the chargesheet is being filed and annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A-8, for the kind reference of this Hon'ble Court.” 14. Perusal of the abovementioned affidavit goes to show that the DGP himself has stated that there is no provision, which requires the Investigating Officer to wait for the presence of the accused for filing of the final report, but in spite of the same, the final reports are kept pending and the Investigating Officers are not proceeding in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 299 of the Cr.P.C. and delaying the final report being forwarded to the competent Courts for their oblique motives. 10 15. In that view of the matter, the Director General of Police, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur is directed to file his personal affidavit disclosing as to what steps have been taken in this regard. 16. The affidavit so filed by the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, shall be sent to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, who shall place the same before us, in our chambers, as soon as the same is received. 17. Learned State counsel is directed to send a copy of this order to the Director General of Police, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, for necessary information and compliance of this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet