1 2025:CGHC:42626-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2623 of 2025 1 - Shiva Shrivas S/o Shri Rameshwar Shrivas Aged About 22 Years R/o Village - Ranidera, P.S. - Takathpur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Om Prakash Sahu S/o Shri Shiddhram Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Village - Raibareli, P.S. - Pipariya, District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. - Kotwali, District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Superintendent Of Police District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Sursari Umre D/o Shri Binda Prasad Shrivas Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No. 9, Kawardha, District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Divyanshu Umre S/o Smt. Sursari Umre Aged About 22 Years R/o Ward No. 9, Kawardha, District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent /State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.08.23 13:14:07 +0530 2 Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 22/08/2025 1. The instant CRMP has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS with the following prayer:- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the present case from the Respondent No. 1 and 2. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to pass an appropriate order/direction for quashing of the impugned FIR bearing crime no. 242/2025 u/s 305(a), 331(4) dated 05-06-2025 registered at Respondent No. 1 Police Station against the Petitioners. iii) That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, may kindly be awarded.” 2. Facts of the case in brief is that the respondent No. 3 has lodged impugned FIR, against the Petitioners before the Respondent No. 1 alleging that on 16-03-2025 at around 10.30 to 11pm some unknown persons entered in her house and have stolen around 30 Lacs kept in her house which was received towards sale consideration of 2.10 Acres of lands which her father has sold and given the money to keep it safely in her house. It is claimed in the FIR that during inquiry within the family, her son Divyanshu (respondent No.4 herein) informed her that he along with his two friends that is the present Petitioners have stolen the money kept in her house. It is further alleged that Om Prakash (Petitioner No. 3 2) has stolen 20 Lacs and Shiva (Petitioner No. 1) has taken away 10 Lacs from her house and it is claimed in the FIR that out of Rs.20 Lacs, the Petitioner No. 2 has spent Rs. 9 Lacs for purchasing a car bearing registration no. CG-09-JS-5167, spent Rs.4 Lacs in the Panchayat Election and spent Rs.1.5 Lacs to purchase the I-phone and Rs.2.5 Lacs for purchasing a bullet motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-10-BW-9143 and is still having Rs.3 Lacs in cash. It is further alleged in the FIR that Shiva (Petitioner No. 1) has spent Rs.4 Lacs in purchasing a land and purchased a bullet motorcycle spending Rs. 2.5 Lacs and is still having Rs.3.5 Lacs in cash with him. On the basis of above allegations, impugned FIR was lodged on 05-06-2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are falsely implicated. He further submits that the impugned FIR is absolutely baseless, misconceived and frivolous. He further submits that there is no evidence to show the involvement of the petitioners in the present crime. He further submits that the vehicles purchased by the petitioners are on loan and the money was stolen by the son of the complainant himself and they are not involved in the crime and are harassed without any reason and pray for quashment of the FIR. 4. Per Contra, learned State counsel submits that the FIR was registered for offence punishable under Section 305 (a) and 331 (4) of the B.N.S. and involves huge amount and requires 4 investigation. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Prima-facie, this Court found that the FIR was registered by respondent No. 3 for theft of Rs. 30 lakhs by unknown persons and further it was alleged that the theft was done by the son of the complainant (respondent No.4 herein) along with his friends (petitioners herein) and the matter requires investigation. From perusal of the FIR itself shows that the petitioners accused persons have purchased car, bullet motorcycle, mobile phone and land immediately after the alleged incident. Hence, the allegation leveled against the petitioners requires investigation. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties; and further looking to the seriousness of the crime and alleged involvement of petitioners, this Court does not find any good ground to quash the FIR, at this stage as it will prejudice the trial. Accordingly, the instant CRMP is dismissed, at motion stage. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti