1 2025:CGHC:41405-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2342 of 2025 Naresh Kohli S/o- Late Shri S.L. Kohli, Aged About 74 Years R/o- House No-A- 6, Shankar Nagar, Police Thana Civil Lines, District - Raipur (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Gudhyari, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Prakash Chand Jain, S/o Late Shri Dugarmal Jain, Aged About 58 Years R/o Street No. 05, Shree Manohar Sadan, Mahesh Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Bhushan Khandekar, S/o Unknown, Aged About 43 Years R/o Gudhiyari, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 18/08/2025 1 Heard Mr. Shobhit Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1. 2 By way of this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks for the following relief(s): 2 “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. (ii) To quash impugned F.I.R. No. 0273/2023 (part of Annexure P/1) registered at the P.S. Gudhiyari, District Raipur (C.G.) against the petitioner U/s 420,34 of I.P.C; (iii) To kindly be pleased quash the impugned 18.07.2024 Charge-sheet No. 343/2024 dated (Annexure P/1) filed by the respondent no.1 U/s 420,34 of I.P.C against the petitioner; (iv) To kindly be pleased to quash of impugned order dated 19.07.2024 (Annexure P/2) passed in Criminal Case No. 13465/2024 which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate first Class, Raipur (C.G.) for further trial and to quash all the subsequent proceedings (if any) initiated against the petitioner on the basis of impugned FIR No. 0273/2023. (v) That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, may kindly be awarded.” 3 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant/respondent No. 02 has lodged the complaint against the present petitioner and respondent No. 03 alleging that the present petitioner along with other co-accused executed the sale agreement dated 13.12.2018 for selling of the land in dispute bearing Khasara No. 853/09 0.809 Hect., which is situated at Gram-Chirhuldi P.H.N 106/B, R.N.M. Raipur 1, Tehsil/District- Raipur in favour of the complainant i.e. Prakash Chand Jain. It is alleged that prior to the agreement dated 13.12.2018, the petitioner had entered into an agreement with Late Smt. Dhelabai and Mansingh Sahu for the purchase of the disputed land and had also given advance payment to Late Smt. Dhelabai and Mansingh for the same. It is also alleged by the complainant/respondent No. 02 that there was a condition in the agreement that Late Smt. Dhelabai and Mansingh, after taking out the disputed property from ceiling and also after rectifying it in 3 the Land Records they would register the disputed property in the name of the petitioner or in the name of any other person as said the present petitioner will suggest. On the basis of this the complainant/respondent No. 02 made an offer to purchase the said disputed property from the petitioner. It is further alleged that the complainant/respondent No. 02 has paid Rs. 21,00,000/-as advance towards the purchase of the disputed property after which, even after several reminders, the accused persons were not executing sale deed in favour of the complainant/respondent No. 02 which amounts to the offence of cheating. On the basis of such complaint FIR has been registered under Crime No. 273/2023 for the offence under Sections 420 and 34 of IPC against the present petitioner and the respondent No. 3. 4 The Police, after completing the investigation has filed the charge-sheet No. 343/2024 dated 18.07.2024 before the learned trial Court under Sections 420 and 34 of IPC against the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 (who was stated to be absconding), and vide impugned order dated 19.07.2024 the learned Judicial Magistrate First class, Raipur has taken cognizance of the case and registered a case being Criminal Case No. 13465/2024. 5 Mr. Shobhit Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner duly filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail before this Hon'ble Court which was registered as MCRCA No. 924/2023 which was allowed vide order dated 25.08.2023. Earlier the petitioner had filed a petition before this Hon'ble Court bearing CrMP No. 1629/2024 for quashing of the FIR in which this Hon’ble Court, vide its order dated 26.06.2024, had directed the investigating officer concerned to submit the police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC within a period of 6 weeks. 4 6 It is further submitted by Mr. Mishra that from bare perusal of aforesaid FIR, it is quite evident that averments made therein doesn't not disclose commission of any offence as alleged under Sections 420,34 of IPCand no prima facie case is made out against the present petitioner. The transaction between the parties was commercial in nature. Late Smt. Dhelabai and Mansingh did not register the disputed property in the name of the petitioner due to which the sale deed in the name of complainant/respondent No. 2 could not be executed and as such, the same would not fall under the offence of cheating. Moreover, the amount paid by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner has also been returned back at the time of anticipatory bail. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceeding against the petitioner will be an abuse of process of law and it is liable to be quashed in the interest of justice as the petitioner is a 74 years old person. 7 On the other hand, Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that after registration of the FIR, charge sheet has already been filed and the learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the matter and it is for the learned trial Court to proceed with the matter. He submits that the petitioner alongwith his son-in-law i.e. respondent No. 3 were involved in the offence in question and the respondent No. 3 who is the co-accused in this case, is absconding. 8 None appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2/complainant as also on behalf of the respondent No. 3/co-accused. 9 On the last date of hearing i.e. on 28.07.2025, it was informed before this Court that the respondent No. 2 was not appearing before the learned trial Court and as such, the Superintendent of Police, Raipur, was directed to ensure the appearance of respondent No. 2. 5 10 In compliance of the order dated 28.07.2025, notice has been duly served upon the respondent No. 2 through the Station House Officer, Gudiyari, on 12.08.2025 which is taken on record. 11 From perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires that there was an agreement / understanding between the petitioner, co-accused/ respondent No. 3 and the respondent No. 2/complainant with respect to sale of certain land which admittedly was not in the name of the petitioner or the co-accused. This fact was also known to the respondent No. 2/complainant as it was agreed that after the land in question is released from ceiling proceedings, the same would be transferred firstly in the name of the petitioner and then it would be transferred in the name of the respondent No. 2. It is an admitted position that the advance consideration amount of Rs. 21 Lacs which was paid by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner, has been refunded back to the respondent No. 2. If the petitioner was not getting the land registered in the name of the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 2 could have instituted a suit for specific performance of agreement to sale. The petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail by a learned Single Judge of this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 924/2023 vide order dated 25.08.2023 on the ground that the petitioner had already returned the amount of Rs. 21 Lacs to the respondent No. 2. The dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and as such, continuation of the criminal proceedings would be abuse of process of law. 12 The respondent No. 2 / complainant was not appearing before the learned trial Court and so is the situation before this Court also. Despite service of notice, he has chosen not to appear in this case and it appears that after receipt of the money, he is not at all interested in pursuing the criminal case. 6 13 As a result, the FIR bearing Crime No. 0273/2023 registered at Police Station, Gudiyari, District Raipur, for the offences under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC, the charge-sheet bearing No. 343/2024 dated 18.07.2024, the order dated 19.07.2024 passed in Criminal Case No. 13465/2024 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur and the subsequent proceedings, so far it relates to the petitioner- Naresh Kohli, are quashed. 14 Consequently, this petition stands allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.08.19 18:23:54 +0530