1 2025:CGHC:47730-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2767 of 2023 Surya Pratap Rao Repalli S/o Byankat Narayan Murti Aged About 55 Years R/o Flat No. 624-6 Floor, Golden Park, V.I.P. State, Khamardih, Shankar Nagar, Police Station Khamardih, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Ramnath Singh S/o Late Shri Jang Bahadur Aged About 52 Years R/o Gali No. R-4, Vinoba Nagar, Police Station Tarbahar, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Soumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anand Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Soumya Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 1/State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.09.19 10:32:13 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the charge-sheet dated 08.07.2023 filed in relation to the FIR No. 269 of 2021 dated 19.12.2021 registered with the respondent No.1 – Police Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur thereby registering offences under Sections 420 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code so far it relates to the petitioner or may kindly be pleased to pass any other order as it deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that a complaint was filed by respondent No. 2, alleging that co-accused Rajesh Seth and Rajini Seth, who were partners of Walia & Company, and for which Vinayak House was a project, constructed a multi-storeyed building on a piece of land. The complainant claimed that he secured a loan for purchasing flat No. 405, measuring 1268 sq. ft., on the third floor, for a total of Rs.39 Lakhs. A portion of the amount was deposited as earnest money, and the remaining funds were acquired through a loan from Cent Bank. It was further alleged that the builder, in connivance with Cent Bank officials got disbursed the entire loan to the builder, despite the complainant not yet receiving possession of the flat. Additionally, it was asserted that the construction of the building encroached upon government land illegally, constituting an offence. 4. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel that in an identical matter, Coordinate Bench 3 of this Court had dismissed CRMP No. 2834 of 2023 (Nitin Nigam & Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another) vide order dated 12.07.2025 observing as follows : “8. It has been pointed out that that this Court had an occasion to consider and decide an identical issue pertaining to the petitioners herein wherein the petitioners had sought quashing of the charge sheet dated 16.10.2023 filed in relation to the FIR dated 28.06.2020 at Police Station, Tarbahar, for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of the IPC, in Cr.M.P. No. 2837/2023 and this Court, vide order dated 01.07.2024 disposed of the said petition reserving liberty to the petitioners to raise all objections/ grounds before the trial Court concerned. The issue and the facts being identical, we are of the considered opinion that this case may also be disposed of in the same terms. 9. As the petitioners are named in the FIR, investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed which is challenged herein, we do not deem it appropriate to interfere with the proceedings pending before the trial Court concerned and as such, this petition stands disposed of. However, the petitioners are at liberty to raise their objections/grounds at an appropriate stage before the trial Court concerned/appropriate forum.” They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of CRMP No. 2834 of 2023, this petition may also be disposed off in the same terms. 5. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel 4 for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this petition is identical to CRMP No. 2834 of 2023, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in CRMP No. 2834 of 2023. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed off in terms of the order dated 12.07.2024 passed in CRMP No. 2834 of 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan