1 2025:CGHC:35372 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2411 of 2023 Ajit Sharma S/o Shri Santosh Sharma Aged About 30 Years Arvindnagar, Sarkanda, P.S.- Sarkanda., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer (S.H.O), P.S- Tapkara,, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Sandeep Sinha Legal Head, Shriram Finance Company Ltd., Office at - Anupam Nagar,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Palash Jha, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ravi Kumar Kashyap, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 23.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Palash Jha, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Ravi Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 1/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.07.23 19:28:19 +0530 2 “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quash the impugned FIR and entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 37 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 34 and 409 of the IPC at P.S. Tapkara, District Jashpur (C.G.), in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR against the petitioner was made by the respondent No. 2 alleging that one Bhupendra Sahu being the Manager of the Branch had embezzled Rs. 9,81,069/-, thus, the impugned FIR was registered as Crime No. 37 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge-sheet has filed against the petitioner and the allegation upon the petitioner is only that he had been friends with Bhupendra Sahu and had received money in his bank and was transferred back to the same account, and thus, the story is prima facie and totally false, the charge- sheet is filed before learned JMFC in Kunkuri, Dist: Jashpur (C.G.). He would submit that the petitioner is not working in the Shriram Finance & there is no any transaction on the bank account of the petitioner and there at the time incident took place petitioner was not involved in any manner. The transaction which were made mistakenly was also returned even as per the bank statement filled with the charge-sheet. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. has 3 filed before the learned JMFC Kunkuri, Dist: Jashpur(C.G.) and in the application it is mentioned that the petitioner is not working in Shri Ram Finance and petitioner didn't got any kind of amount in his bank account. He also contended that in the order of 13.04.2023 passed by learned JMFC, Kunkuri, Dist (Jashpur) here it is says that Ajit Sharma/petitioner is not did any kind of fraud to the Company and it is mentioned in order- sheet that the Ajit Sharma/petitioner is friend of Bhupendra, deposited some amount, but after some times on same day the petitioner/Ajit Sharma deposited the amount again in the account of Bhupendra. The petitioner not did any fraud to the Company. He further submits that the petitioner again filed application before the learned Session Judge, Jaspur under Section 397 read with Section 399 of the Cr.P.C. When the receipt is requested by cashier then cashier provided them the fake receipt & made entry in Company account. He would submit that the revision under Section 397 read with Section 399 of the Cr.P.C. displeased with the order passed by the reviewer under the Cr.P.C. on 14.02.2023 by the learned JMFC, Kunkuri, Dist: Jashpur (C.G.) in Crime No. 19 of 2022 (State of C.G. vs. Bhupendra Sahu & 1 other), and it has been presented aggrieved by which under the application submitted by the petitioner, the request for discharge by cancelling Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. was rejected and a case under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC was filed against the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Section 420 of the IPC, provides that whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces a person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of valuable security, or anything which is 4 signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted in valuable security shall be liable to be punished for a term and shall also be liable to fine. Hence, this petition. 7. On the other, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that in the present case investigation has already been done and after completion of investigation the final report/charge-sheet has been filed before the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court had already framed the charges against the petitioner and the trial is in progress. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. In view of the submission made by the learned State counsel, it is evident that in the present case, after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner and the learned trial Court had already framed the charges against the petitioner and the trial is in progress. Further, the petitioner has not challenge the order farming charge against the petitioner. Hence, we do not find it a fit case to quash the FIR bearing Crime No. 37 of 2021 dated 27.01.2019 registered at Police Station Tapkara, District Jashpur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 34 and 409 of the IPC, as such, this petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan