1 2025:CGHC:2373-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 137 of 2025 Satyendra Pradhan S/o Sitaram Pradhan Aged About 38 Years R/o L I G-01/322, Sector-02, Deendayal Upadhaya Nagar, P.S.- D.D. Nagar, Dist. Raipur, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S.- Saraipali, District- Mahasamund, C.G. 2 - Smt. Sheela Sharma W/o Dinesh Sharma Aged About 52 Years R/o B-1/604, Walfort Enclave, Near Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur, Dist.- Raipur, C.G. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.01.15 17:23:48 +0530 2 2. The present CRMP has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the following prayer:- “Hence prayed that Hon’ble Court be please to quash the F.I.R. bearing crime no. 351/2018 dated 22/09/2018 registered under Sections 420 of Indian Penal Code along with the charge sheet no 104/2019 dated 30/04/2019, with order taking cognizance’s dated 29/07/2019 and consequential criminal proceedings pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class Saraipali, District Mahasamund in criminal case no. 511/2019, in exercising the inherent powers under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case, are that, on 27.06.2018, respondent No.2/complainant made a written complaint before respondent No.1 alleging therein that the petitioner has established a hospital, which is named and styled as “Arpita Hospital” at Saraipali and to facilitate the funding of the establishment of the hospital, the petitioner had invited the complainant as partner, regarding which a partnership deed was executed on 06.07.2016 and the complainant has made investment of 3 Rs.91,67,000/-. The said invested money has been used by the petitioner in his proprietorship firm, as such, he had committed criminal breach of trust. On the basis forged and fabricated documents, he had obtained loan from HDFC Bank to the tune of Rs.59,76,000/- and said amount has been spend for his personal purpose, by which the petitioner has committed fraud with the complainant. 4. It is further case of the petitioner that on the basis written complaint, on 22.09.2018, Police of Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund registered offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) in connection with in Crime No.351/2018 against the petitioner. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner under Sections 409 and 402 of the IPC only on 30.04.2019. Thereafter, vide order dated 29.07.2019, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saraipali, District Mahasamund took cognizance on the charge-sheet filed by the prosecution and registered a case bearing Criminal Case No.511/2019 against the petitioner, but till date, charges have not been framed against the petitioner. 5. It appears that the case pertains to the year 2018 and on a pointed query being made by this Court to learned counsel for the petitioner as to why the charges have not been framed against the petitioner as well as he has not annexed the copy of the order-sheet of the trial Court to show status of the trial, thereafter the learned counsel for the petitioner produced the certified copies of the order-sheets, 4 which go to show that it is the petitioner who has been deliberately moving applications for discharging his presence and is adopting the dilatory tactics to delay the trial by not letting the trial Court to frame charges against him and because of that, the charges could not be framed. 6. In view of the above, instant CRMP is dismissed on this count alone. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu