1 2025:CGHC:27944-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1976 of 2025 1 Suraj Singh Makkad S/o Shri Joginder Singh Makkad Aged About 46 Years R/o Shikshak Nagar, Ambedkar Ward, Mungeli, P.S. And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 2 Siddharth Baid S/o Late Ashok Kumar Baid Aged About 20 Years R/o Gandhi Ward, Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 3 Leena Baid Wd/o Ashok Kumar Baid Aged About 54 Years R/o Gandhi Ward, Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.06.28 12:29:41 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 26/06/2025 1. The instant CRMP has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS with the following prayer:- “1. That, this Hon'ble Court may be kindly pleased to call for the entire records for its kind persusal. 2. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the impugned FIR No. 96/2025(ANNEXURE P/1) registered vide dated 20.03.2025 for offence u/s 318(4), 308(2), 3(5) of the BNS 2023 registered at PS Mungeli, District Mungeli, CG against the petitioner & also quashing of the further criminal proceedings persuant to FIR No. 96/2025 initiated against the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 3. Any, other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper may also be granted, in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case is that, a written complaint was made by the complainant before the Police station Mungeli, District Mungeli, CG, wherein he has stated that he has acquainted with Nehal 3 Singh Sandhu, Ayush Shriwas & Gurvinder Singh @ Laddu, who were the Director of one Black Hole Event Company & the complainant has invested money in the event conducted by the company on the assurance of good profit. In this context his acquaintances namely Ayush Thakur, Ayush Pratap Singh @ Sameer Thakur & Raju Sahu also asked him to invest in the above company & on account of deliberations with all of them he invested the money in the company with respect to event & money transactions was done between them, thereafter an event was organized by Black Hole Event Company & Nehal Singh Sandhu, Ayush Shriwas & Gurvinder Singh Sandhu informed him that they suffered a huge loss in the event and a dispute occurred with Ayush Thakur, Ayush Pratap Singh, Raju Sahu, Divyansh Thakur, Vijendra Jagtap, Lovjeet Singh, Vasu Pandey and they demanded money from the complainant & started threatening him & despite stating many a times that he is not involved in the event they were threatening him on the point of knife and further some sale deed was also executed forcefully between the present petitioner and some person. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the allegations leveled against the petitioner is baseless and it has been mentioned that the petitioner was threatening the complainant on the name of some criminal person. He further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and prays 4 that the FIR against the petitioner be quashed. 4. Per Contra, learned State counsel would oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that investigation is under process. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Prima-facie, this Court found that the petitioner has come up before this Court for quashment of FIR. From, bare perusal of the pleadings and the documents, it is evident that the petitioner was threatening the complainant on the name of some person was having criminal history and further he has threaten on the point of knife and as the matter is under investigation any interference at this stage will hamper the investigation, therefore we do not find any good ground to quash the FIR. However, it is obligatory that the trial be brought to a logical end expeditiously. 7. In that view of the matter, the CRMP is rejected at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ $ Bhilwar