1 2025:CGHC:21133-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1580 of 2025 Vikaram Haldar S/o Guru Pad Haldar Aged About 42 Years R/o D.N.K. Colony Narayanpur, Tahsil, P.S. And District- Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shailendra Singh Parihar S/o Shri Rajendra Singh Parihar (Adpo) R/o G.A.D. Colony Narayanpur, Tahsil, P.S. And District- Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Love Kumar Ramteke, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 08.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. Love Kumar Ramteke, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.05.09 10:33:53 +0530 2 Government Advocate 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 quash the FIR No. 0031/2025 dated 19/04/2025 registered by Police Station Narayanpur, District- Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh, under Section 420 I.P.C., against the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. Prosecution story in brief is that respondent No.2 Shailendra Singh Parihar submitted a written application regarding fraud committed by Vikram Haldhar / petitioner herein that he contacted him and established relationship with him and told him that he is in fishing business and that there is no loss in fishing business if he invests his money in fish, petitioner would give him about 50 percent more money in addition to the principal amount of whatever amount complainant invests after 6 months. Whenever petitioner used to meet the complainant, he used to tempt him by talking about investing money in business and getting more profit. Falling into the temptation and talks of petitioner, the complainant deposited a total of Rs.4,00,000/- by getting lured to invest money in fish business for profit after six months. Six months later, when complainant demanded the said money from petitioner, he kept saying that he will give it in some time and kept saying that he will make arrangements and return the entire money. Complainant kept on demanding his money back from the petitioner, but every time petitioner said that he will return his money. During this time, 3 complainant was transferred to Durg District, then he talked to petitioner through phone to return his money but every time petitioner kept asking for time from him and after this, petitioner stopped picking up his phone. When petitioner did not return four lakh rupees that he had taken from complainant, the complainant lodged FIR dated 19.04.2025 in Police Station Narayanpur, District- Narayanpur (C.G.) for committing the crime of cheating by embezzling Rs.4,00,000/- taken from the complainant by making contact with him and luring him to increase the amount under the guise of relations. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged against him and has not committed any such type offence punishable under section 420 of I.P.C. According to the FIR dated 19/04/2025, the offence date is 24/02/2022. The FIR is delayed by 3 years, which tells that the FIR is thoughtfully registered after planning and plotting. In the circumstances of the present case, no offence is made out against the petitioner. The respondent No.2, who is in the post of ADPO, had given money to the petitioner to do business with him for fish farming. They were equal partners in the profit and loss of the business. Both of them have also earned profit. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 / State opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the 4 petitioner 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 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 the petitioner has embezzled Rs.4,00,000/- 5 from the complainant by making contact with him and luring him to invest money in petitioner’s fishery business, with assuring him to return his money after 06 months with a profit of 50% increase in the amount under the guise of relations. Further, when the complainant asked for his money back, the petitioner kept on dodging the complainant’s phone and did not return the same. As such, the FIR itself discloses cognizable offence on the part of the petitioner hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed and taken to its logical end. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in this petition. 8. 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 6 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. 9. 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.4,00,000/-, on the pretext of providing 50% profit on investing the money in petitioner’s fishery business, F.I.R. discloses the commission of a 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. 10. 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. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet