1 2025:CGHC:10487-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 792 of 2021 1 - Vinod Ramniklal Patel S/o Shri Ramniklal Patel Aged About 40 Years R/o Patel Saw Mill, Mul Road, Bengali Camp Square, Chandrapur ( Maharashtra), District : Chandrapur, Maharashtra ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Urla, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Satish Jain S/o Late Shri Jawahar Lal Jain Aged About 40 Years R/o Mahavir Plywood Industries, Near Sbi Bank, Urla, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Khushboo Naresh Dua, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. M. K. Jain, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 04/03/2025 1. Heard Ms. Khushboo Naresh Dua, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also 2 heard Mr. M. K. Jain, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State, Mr. Kashif Shakeel, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the FIR of Crime No. 189/2018 registered at police station Urla District Raipur, charge sheet dated 29.07.2019 and the proceeding of the criminal case No. 250/2020 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. Initially the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR of Crime No. 189/2018 dated 05.09.2018 registered at police station Urla, District Raipur. During the pendency of the present petition the charge- sheet has been filed in the case on 19.07.2019 then the petitioner has filed an application for amendment in the prayer clause and sought amendment with respect to the challenge of the charge-sheet the said amendment application I.A No.2/2021 was allowed vide order dated 22.10.2021 by the learned Single Judge and the same has been incorporated in the memo of petition. Since charges have been framed in the case vide order dated 13.01.2020, the petitioner again filed an application on 21.02.2025 for amendment in the memo of petition. Including the amendment in the grounds of the petition as well as in the prayer column. The said amendment application I.A. No. 04/2024 is allowed vide order dated 04.03.2025 and thus the relief claimed by the petitioner in the present petition is as under: "1. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable writs/order/direction to quash the entire proceedings of Crime No. 189/2018 by Police Station Urla, District Raiour, Chhattisgarh as well as the entire charge sheet and the initiation of criminal proceedings arising therefrom; 2. Any other relief, which may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed. 10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to 3 quash the impugned FIR No. 189/2018 registered at Police Station Urla, District Raipur on 09.05.2018 for offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash Final report 270/2019 dated 29.07.2019 for offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash impugned order dated 13.01.2020 (P/5), whereby Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur has taken cognizance of the impugned charge sheet and registered the impugned criminal proceeding as Criminal Case No. 250/2020. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash charges framed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code vide order dated 06.12.2023 in criminal case No. 250/2020 and initiation of all further proceedings arising therefrom against the present petitioner." 3. Brief facts of the case as emerges that the respondent No.2 has lodged a report on 02.11.2017 against the petitioner with the allegation that the petitioner has purchased plywood from the respondent No.2 which he has received in his godown but has not paid its consideration. Despite having made a repeated request for its payment he evading his phone call and has not replied his messages and thus he lodged the report to the police that he has been cheated by the petitioner. The FIR has been registered against the petitioner on 09.05.2018 for the offence under Section 420 of IPC in which the final report has been submitted on 29.07.2019. Since there is no interim order in the case, the proceeding of the criminal case before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur is continued and charges have been framed and thereafter recording of evidence is going on. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that it is a pure commercial transaction and a commercial dispute between the parties with respect to the non-fulfillment of the promise to pay the consideration of the plywood which the petitioner has purchased. The contractual dispute between the parties has been given in the colour of criminalization, therefore, the FIR as well as charge-sheet and proceeding of criminal case No. 250/2020 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondent opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have submitted that since the petitioner has failed to make the payment of the goods supplied to him and now he is denying from receiving the goods on his end. The respondent No.2 is having ample documentary evidence for the same which clearly reflects that the goods have been delivered to its destination and the petitioner has received the said goods and denying from receiving the goods itself shows his culpable mental state and mens rea which demonstrate that the petitioner has fraudulently and dishonestly received goods from the respondent No.2 and evading payment which does amounts to offence of cheating. He would further submits that before the learned trial Court, the evidence of the complainant/private respondent has already been recorded and the trial of the case is in progress, therefore, the issue involved in the case are relates to disputed question of facts which are to be decided after recording evidence of the parties, therefore, the petition does not have any merits in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. From the document annexed with the petition, it prima facie appears that the petitioner has purchased plywood from the respondent No.2, he received the consignment of goods but the allegation is that he is not made its payment. From the documentary evidence as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent No.2, it also appears that the petitioner is denying from receiving the 5 goods on his end and it also reflects that the nature of dispute requires recording of evidence of the parties and it cannot be said that no prima facie offence is appears to be made out to quash the entire proceedings and also it cannot be said that while framing the charge, the learned trial Court has failed in exercising its jurisdiction to consider the prima facie case against the petitioner for the offence in question. Further the trial of the case itself is at advance stage as the complainant/private respondent has already been examined before the learned trial Court. 8. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter, accordingly the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.03.11 15:25:18 +0530