1 2025:CGHC:34364-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2273 of 2025 1 - Mukesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Mangeram Agrawal Aged About 48 Years Caste Agrawal, Occupation- Business, R/o Village And Post- Jhagarpur, Police Station And Tahsil- Lailunga, District Raigarh C.G. 2 - Yash Agrawal S/o Mukesh Kumar Agrawal Aged About 24 Years Caste Agrawal, Occupation- Business, R/o Village And Post- Jhagarpur, Police Station And Tahsil- Lailunga, District Raigarh C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur C.G. 2 - Rampher Gupta S/o Bajrangi Gupta Aged About 40 Years Permanent Address At Village Gaina, District Balrampur At Present Maa Kamla Rice Mill, Village- Palidih, Police Station Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur C.G. --- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.07.23 10:32:15 +0530 2 For Petitioners :Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate For Respondent/ State :Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 21.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/ State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking for the following relief:- “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the F.I.R. No. 80/2025 registered by P.S. Patthalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence u/s 318(4) of BNS, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case in brief is that an FIR was lodged by respondent No. 2, who is working as clerk, against the petitioners alleging that the petitioners regularly visited the rice mill with pickup vehicle for selling of paddy and played fraud by increasing the weight of the paddy by making some labour sit in behind of the pickup while weighting the paddy. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the complainant and petitioners are having trade relations and further submits that the complaint against the petitioners are false and fabricated only to save the complainant. He further submits that the present complaint is just an after thought as there was an earlier complaint by the petitioners on 11.04.2025 against the complainant herein under Sections 296, 115 (2), 351 (3) and 140 (3) of the B.N.S. He further prays for quashment of FIR. 5. Per Contra, learned State counsel would oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He further submits that in the present case counter FIR has been lodged and the matter requires investigation. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended in the petition. 7. From bare perusal of the pleadings and the documents appended in the petition, it is manifest that the parties have lodged the reports against each other regarding the dispute arose between them. 8. Prima-facie, this Court found that the petitioners have come up before this Court for quashment of FIR. From bare perusal of the pleadings and the documents, it is evident that the petitioner and the complainant were working in same 4 business and counter report has also been made against each other. It is further noted that the matter requires investigation, therefore, at this stage, this Court does not find any good ground to quash the FIR. However, it is obligatory that the trial be brought to a logical end expeditiously. 9. In that view of the matter, the CRMP is disposed of, at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ S. Bhilwar