1 2025:CGHC:33595 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1211 of 2023 Tukaram @ Pappu Sahu Son of Tansingh Sahu, Aged About 36 Years Resident of Sasha, Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 2. Ramashankar Soni, Son of Ram Vishal Soni, Aged About 44 Years Resident of Village Sandi, P.S. and Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 1/State and Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.07.17 17:57:41 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the First Information Report, and further proceeding of registered Crime No. 748 of 2022 may also be quashed and the petitioner may be acquitted from the aforesaid offences which is registered against him, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has made complaint to the concerned Police Station Palari against the present petitioner and on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant, the Police of Police Station Palari has registered an offence in Crime No. 748 of 2022 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the petitioner. As per allegation made by the complainant is that the petitioner has obtained amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- from the complainant for providing government job, but the petitioner did not provide government job to the complainant and on such complaint, the Police has registered FIR for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the bare perusal of FIR it is clear that no averments against the present petitioner is there to show his involvement in alleged offences. He further submits that if the entire allegations of complainant is taken as it is no offence under any section of IPC, is made out against the petitioner. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation made against the petitioner is false and fabricated in 3 lodging FIR, because the petitioner has neither obtained any amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- in the name of providing government job from the complainant whereas the petitioner was obtained amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 01.11.2019 and amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 24.11.2019 from the complainant in presence of the two witnesses, namely, Sakshi Gopak Verma and Daulal Sahu for business purpose by executing agreements done by the petitioner and complainant and hence, impugned FIR No. 748 of 2022 is contrary to the both agreement and is liable to be set aside. He also contended that the petitioner’s case is made out in the following manner, that the transaction in question is based on on agreement between the parties which turns the alleged liability to be purely of civil nature, due to which the petitioner sought consequential criminal proceedings to be quashed. Hence, this petition. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2 have pointed out that in the present case charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court and the learned trial Court had already framed the charges against the petitioner and the trial is in evidence stage. 7. We have perused the prayers and pleadings made in the petition along with the annexures annexed in this petition. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case that the charge-sheet had already been submitted before the competent Court and the learned trial Court had already framed the charges against the petitioner and the trial is in evidence stage, therefore, at this stage, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. 4 9. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed on this ground alone. However, we hope and trust that the learned trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan