1 2025:CGHC:3817-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 259 of 2025 Sunil Kumar Lunawat S/o Shri Mangilal Lunawat Aged About 43 Years R/o I-3/53, Jaishree Colony District Udaipur, Rajasthan 313001 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer Police Station Rajendra Nagar District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 2. Rajnikant Singh S/o Sant Sewak Singh R/o B-106, Avenue 144, Amlidih, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001 3. Nitin Prajapati S/o Champalal Prajapati R/o New Shanti Nagar, Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 492007 ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Prashan Shukla and Mr. Devashish Tiwari, Advocates. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 22 . 01 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Prashant Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner through video conferencing along with Mr. Devaashish Tiwari, learned BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.01.23 10:56:17 +0530 2 counsel. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 1/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash First Information Report bearing No. 181 of 2019 lodged at Police Station Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh dated 07.05.2019 to the extent of the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) seeking quashment of FIR bearing No. 181 of 2019 lodged at Police Station Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh on 07.05.2019 for the offences punishable under Section 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) pursuant to the settlement between the petitioner and the complainants. He also submits that on 07.05.2019, one Mr. Amit Andani on behalf of Mr. Rajnikant Singh/respondent No. 2 approached the ofÏcials of the respondent No. 1 along with the written complaint against the petitioner and one Mr. Aditya Burad for lodging of the FIR regarding the offences punishable under Section 420 and 34 of the IPC. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is itself a victim of the fraudulent acts committed by the primary accused, Aditya Burad, who is also his cousin. The petitioner has been wrongfully implicated in the present case, as Aditya not only 3 deceived the complainants, but also cheated the petitioner under the same false pretenses. Aditya had promised both the petitioner and the complainants a Directorship in the company, along with a C & F agency of Shree Cement. In return for their trust and investment of Rs. 50 lakhs, Aditya assured them substantial profits. However, these promises were false, and the petitioner, like the complainants, was misled into investing. He also submits that the petitioner’s involvement in the matter stems from being a victim of the same fraudulent scheme and not as a conspirator. He has been unfairly dragged into the case due to his association with Aditya Burad, despite being equally defrauded. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that when such non- culpability came into the knowledge of the complainants, they afÏrm on afÏdavit(s) (Annexure P/4) as well as settlement deed dated 12.12.2024 that the present petitioner has no role to play in the commission of crime by Mr. Aditya Burad. He further states that on 12.06.2019, the application filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail was rejected by the learned trial Court. Post such rejection, the petitioner approached this Court through MCRCA No. 1179 of 2019 seeking anticipatory bail which was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.07.2019. He would submit that the charge- sheet was submitted on 03.09.2019 against Mr. Aditya Burad and investigation qua petitioner was kept pending under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that on 23.08.2024, the petitioner preferred fresh application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. before learned Session Judge (FTC) which was rejected through order dated 23.08.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner approached this Court by filing an application bearing MCRCA No. 1112 of 2024 which was also dismissed 4 vide order dated 30.09.2024. Petitioner assailed the judgment and final order dated 17.09.2024 in MCRCA No. 1112 of 2024 before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 45867 of 2024 and the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 04.10.2024 has granted the anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence this petition. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the petitioner has not cooperated with the investigation though the Hon’ble Apex Court granted the anticipatory bail to the petitioner with a direction to the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation, to which the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been cooperating with the investigation and has moved an application before the Investigation OfÏcer concerned, but on a pointed query being made from him whether the application which has been given to the Investigation OfÏcer has been annexed to the present petition, learned counsel states that he has not filed the application in the present petition. 7. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed on this ground alone. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan