1 2025:CGHC:22060-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1670 of 2025 1 Surya Prakash Diwedi S/o Late Shri A.K Diwedi Aged About 60 Years R/o L.I.G. 219 Hudko Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., P.S. Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 2 Prahlad Verma S/o Late Devsingh Verma Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Utai District Durg (C.G) 3 Ganesh Ram Sahu S/o Lekh Ram Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Kuthrail P.S Ranchirai District Durg (C.G) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.05.15 16:49:19 +0530 2 15/05/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer:- “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quash the FIR no. 0110 dated 23.04.2025 (Annexure P/1) against the petitioner by the police station Gunderdehi, District Balod under section 420 of IPC, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an FIR No. 0110/2025 has been lodged against the petitioner at Gunderdehi (Balod) under Section 420 of I.P.C alleging that he has taken Rs. 14 Lakh luring them on the pretext of providing job and has committed fraud with them. He further submits that twice the enquiry has been made by the police on the same complaint against the petitioner firstly at Gunderdehi (Balod) and secondly at Ramchirai (Balod) but no cognizable offence has been found and he was adviced to approach the court. He further submits that as no cognizable offence was found during the enquiry the registration of FIR is not permissible and the same needs to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made and submits that mere perusal of 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. He further submits that anticipatory bail of the petitioner has also been rejected. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme 3 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. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed. 5. 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 complainants by luring taken Rs. 14 Lakh on the pretext of providing job, 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. 6. 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. 7. Consequently, all the pending interlocutory applications stand disposed off. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/ Jyoti