1 2025:CGHC:48719-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2969 of 2025 Kamlesh Prasad Mishra S/o Shri Shiv Bhola Mishra Aged About 47 Years R/o Arjunpur, P.S. Hanumna, Distt. Maumanj M.P., At Present R/o Ward No. 16, Badan Singh Mohalla, Manendragarh, Distt. Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Mohan Lal Goyan S/o Shri Manbahoran Goyan Aged About 52 Years R/o Mahalpara Baikunthpur, Distt. Koriya, C.G., Lecturer, Higher Secondary School Mansukh, P.S. Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Manendragarh, Distt. Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.09.24 10:33:15 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 23.09.2025 1. The present Cr.M.P. has been filed with the following prayer:- 1. It is therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble High Court may kind enough to allow this application and stay the initiation and further proceedings in the Crime No. 144/2024, u/s 420 of the IPC of Police Station Manendragarh, District Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur (C.G.), and the initiation of criminal proceedings by the registration of FIR No. 144/2024, u/s 420 of the IPC and final report 297/2024 u/s 420 of the IPC, State of Chhattisgarh Vs Kamlesh Prasad Mishra, which is pending before the Court of JMFC Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.), and cognizance has been taken on 07.12.2024 by the Trial Court in the Criminal Case No. 1639/2024 State of Chhattisgarh Vs Kamlesh Prasad Mishra till the final decision of the present petition, in the interest of justice. 3 2. It is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass such an order as it deems fit and may also be granted in favor of the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Fact of the case as per the prosecution is that the complainant Mohan Lal Goyan submitted a written complaint before the Police Station Manendragarh, alleging, inter alia, therein that the petitioner told to him that he works in providing jobs in the Education Department, on this, he took Rs. 63 Lakhs from 28 people in the name of the job of the post of Peon & Clerk, and gave it to the petitioner at his home. By this way petitioner cheated Rs. 63 Lakhs. The Police Station Manendragarh registered an FIR u/s 420 of the IPC, and after completing of the investigation charge sheet has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is, in fact, a victim of the alleged crime, inasmuch as he had advanced certain amounts of money to the complainant through PhonePe, as reflected at page No. 89 of the petition, for the purpose of securing employment for his daughter. It is further urged that when the petitioner demanded repayment of the said amount, the complainant, 4 instead of returning the money, lodged the present FIR against him, making false allegations to the effect that the petitioner had collected money from 28 persons on the pretext of providing employment, amounting in total to a sum of Rs. 61 lakhs. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record appended in the petition. 6. However, upon consideration of the material available on record, this Court is of the view that it cannot be held at this stage that no offence is disclosed against the petitioner. While the petitioner has claimed that he is a victim and has advanced money to the complainant for securing employment for his daughter, the allegations made in the FIR and the facts placed on record prima facie disclose an offence which requires detailed investigation and examination of evidence. The question of whether the petitioner was induced or defrauded, or whether he acted with criminal intent, is a matter to be determined during the course of trial. Moreover the prosecuting agency is also at liberty to prosecute the 5 complainant of the case, if he has parted any money for illegal purpose. 7. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P. is disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib