1 2025:CGHC:43848-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1237 of 2021 Uttar Kumar Bhoi S/o Late Shri Malikram Bhoi Aged About 57 Years R/o Village- Khamharpali, Patwari Halka No. 35 Circle Khamharpali, Thana And Tahsil - Saraypali, Distrcit- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer Police Station- Singhoda District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Sub Divisional Officer(Revenue) Saraypali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Respondents-State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 29 .08 .2025 1. In the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief:- “It, is therefore, prayed that the petition may kindly be allowed and charge-sheet & FIR of Crime No.109/2019 may kindly be quashed, in the interest of justice” 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the FIR was registered against the petitioner in Crime No. 109/2019, as the stepmother of the petitioner AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.08.29 18:31:49 +0530 2 namely Smt. Surekha Bhoi has filed an application under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act 2007, in which, the order of maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month has been passed by the Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund on 16.04.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the said order before this Court by filing a petition being WP 227 No.394 of 2018, in which, an interim order has been passed on 03.05.2018 and it was directed that “on depositing an amount of Rs. 30,000/- (Thirty Thousand) within four week, the recovery of the remaining amount pursuant to the order dated 16.04.2018 shall remain stayed." Thereafter, the petitioner in compliance of the said order, gava cash amount of Rs. 30,000/- to one Mayank Tiwari Keyoshk Center Saraypali (Grahak Sewa Kendra) to transfer the amount in the account of Surekha Bhoi and the said Kyosk Proprietor made transfer the amount from his account situated at Punjab National Bank Saraypali on 25.05.2018 through reference ID No. 134470082 & Rs. 20,000/- from Canera Bank account through reference ID No. 134463392 and issued receipt in favor of petitioner. The said transaction ID receipt was submitted by the petitioner before the respondent No. 2. But, due to the server problem, the said transfer of the amount could not take place. Thereafter on 18.10.2018, stepmother of petitioner nthrough Power of Attorney Holder submitted an application under section 195 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. for prosecuting the petitioner and prayed for investigation through the Police authority. After receiving the application, learned SDO Revenue, called the report from the concerned bank and after receiving the report, passed an order for registration of the 3 FIR and on that basis an FIR was registered against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has produced the transaction receipt before the Executing Court, which has been given by Mayank Tiwari, Proprietor of Grahak Sewa Kendra Saraypali after taking the cash amount from the petitioner. He submits that there is no evidence to establish the fact that the petitioner had committed the offence of cheating or forgery with the complainant as the receipt issued by the Grahak Sewa Kendra Saraypali has been submitted by him before the concerned Executing Court. Learned counsel would submit that the proprietor of Grahak Sewa Kendra Mayank Tiwari, gave his statement that after taking the amount from the petitioner, he gave the receipt of said NEFT transaction to the petitioner through WhatsApp. But, thereafter the NEFT transaction was failed due to some technical problem and after came to know about the said fact, the petitioner directly deposited the said amount in the account of beneficiary on 02/06/2018. Learned counsel submits that there is a general and omnibus allegations made in the report made by the complainant and there is no specific allegations against the petitioner to attract the ingredients of the aforesaid offences. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents/State would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the offence, which was registered against the petitioner is just and proper. He submits that the matter has been investigated and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings 4 and documents. 6. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly taking into account that on 25.05.2018 the petitioner had deposited the amount with Grahak Sewa Kendra for transfer into the account of Surekha Bhoi and obtained a receipt, which was duly submitted before respondent No.2, but due to a technical issue, the transaction could not be completed, even the proprietor of Grahak Sewa Kendra Mayank Tiwari, gave his statement that after taking the amount from the petitioner, he gave the receipt of said NEFT transaction to the petitioner through WhatsApp; and further considering that upon coming to know about the failure of the transaction, the petitioner promptly deposited the said amount in the beneficiary’s account on 02.06.2018, this Court is of the opinion that no criminal intent can be attributed to the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned FIR No.109/2019 dated 31.08.2019 registered at Police Station Singhoda, District Mahasamund, the charge- sheet bearing No.05/2021 dated 06.02.2021, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 7. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/ Amardeep