1 2025:CGHC:33574-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1432 of 2022 Chand Mohammad S/o Mohd.Nizam Khan, Aged About 36 Years R/o Near B.T.I. Chowk Janjgir P.S. Kotwali, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. City Kotwali, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgrh. 2 - Rishi Kumar Gupta S/o Haricharan Sao, Aged About 65 Years R/o Ganja Chowk Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 17.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.07.18 10:18:36 +0530 2 Advocate for the respondent / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the criminal miscellaneous petition and quash the F.I.R. / Crime No. 209/2016 registered as P.S. City Kotwali Raigarh, Dist-Raigarh (C.G.) the subsequent charge sheet as well as the criminal proceeding pending before learned Special Judge Raigarh, Dist- Raigarh (C.G.) in Special Session Case No. 05/2019 (Under Depositor Interest Act), in the interest of justice.” 3. Prosecution story in a nutshell is that the complainant/respondent No. 02 lodged a written complaint against the officials of a company named- Pratishtha Infracon India Limited head office situated at Dist- Janjgir-Champa (C.G), Sanjeev Guha, Shubhyan Banerjee, Amit Sarkar, Ramgopal Gadhewal, Narayan Jhalariya, Manharan Lal Kewant, alleging that the complainant and other victim have deposited certain amount under a scheme where they will get good return and get their money doubled within 3 years. In the written complaint dated 07.07.2015 before Superintendent of Police, Dist- Raigarh (C.G.) the complainant stated that the accused company has collected money from the victim through their agents and given assurance of good return and double of the deposit money after three years, then complainant/Rishi Kumar Gupta- deposited Rs. 12,000/-, victim- Asha Bairagi- Rs. 60,000/-, Ramkali Thakre- Rs. 12,000/-, Hemlata Rs. 13,000/-, Rekha 3 Dewangan- Rs. 12000/-, Meena Dewangan- Rs. 12,000/-, Gurwari Bai- Rs. 13000/-, Inder Bai- Rs. 80,000/- & Rs. 9200/-, Bharti Yadav- Rs. 16,000/-, Deepika Agrawal- Rs. 12000/-, Renu Devi- Rs. 12,000/- Total amount Rs. 2,66,000/-. When the complainant went to collect their money after the maturity date, company office was closed and the company official flee away with the deposited amount of the complainant and other victims and further, they have not returned their amount as per scheme and that the company office has been closed. 4. Further, on the complaint of the complainant, an F.I.R. was registered on 14.04.2016 by the police of Police Station- City Kotwali, Raigarh, Dist.- Raigarh (C.G.), registered the crime/ F.I.R. No. 209/2016 against the above mentioned officials of the Pratishtha Infracon India Limited and after investigation filed the charge-sheet for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 120(B), 34 of I.P.C. and, section 04, 05 of The Chit Funds Act, 1982 and, section 06 & section 10 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005. The criminal proceedings has been initiated against the petitioner which was registered as Special Case No. 05/2019 (Depositor Interest Act). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and he himself is the victim of the alleged crime, even if the case of the prosecution is taken in its entirety. the petitioner is a share holder in the company to a tune of Rs. 1000/- only and it is evident from the F.I.R. itself that the above 4 mentioned company works under the policy of Redeemable preference shares where issuer of share can take it back after issuing share at a price fixed at the time of issuance of share and in the instant case, the petitioner is not a company official nor any where connected with the operation of it. Further, nothing has been seized from the petitioner which will remotely link him in the alleged crime. The complainant and other victims have also recorded their statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. wherein they have not made any allegation against the present petitioner/accused. The petitioner came into the light for the time only on the basis of memorandum statement of co- accused/Directors namely Sanjeev Guha, Amit Sarkar, Shubhyan Banerjee whereby they have stated that the petitioner was only a share holder to a tune of Rs. 1000/- (one thousand rupees only) in the company, the Directors have falsely implicated the petitioner/applicant in the alleged crime knowing well that he has not committed any offence. The petitioner preferred a regular bail application before the learned trial Court which was allowed vide order dated 20.07.2022 in Special Session Case No. 05/2019 (Under Depositor Interest Act), considering the false implication and non-involvement of the petitioner in the present case. 6. Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet and submits that in the present matter, since the charge-sheet has already been filed, charges have already been framed and trial 5 has started and 19 prosecution witnesses have already been examined, as such, this petition has virtually become infructuous and the same may be dismissed. 7. Learned State Counsel further argued that the petitioner has been prosecuted in connection with the Crime No. 209/2016 dated 14.04.2016 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Raigarh (CG) for offence punishable under section 420, 120(B), 34 of IPC; under section 4 & 5 of Chit Fund Act & under section 6 & 10 of Depositors Interest Act. Upon investigation in the said crime, the statement of witnesses and collecting evidences the involvement of the petitioner has been clearly revealed, therefore, he was charge-sheeted for the offences alleged before the trial Court. The prosecution had seized memorandum of association issued by the Registrar of Companies, which shows the name of the petitioner at Serial No. 7 as share holder of the said company, therefore, the petitioner has been made accused in the crime in question. The evidence making part of the challan supports the allegation which has been raised in the FIR and thus, at this stage no ground is made out calling for interference of this Hon'ble Court. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed, charges have already been framed against the petitioner, trial has 6 already been started and 19 prosecution witnesses have already been examined, as such, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the present matter as the FIR as well as the impugned charge-sheet, discloses the fact that the petitioner is one of the share holder of the company in question, hence, it is obligatory that the trial be brought to a 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/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet