1 CRMP No. 2804 of 2025 2025:CGHC:45480-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2804 of 2025 Helan Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Manthir Ram Sahu, Aged About 45 Years R/o Railway Colony, P.S. Tarbahar, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O., P.S. Civil Lines, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Chandravijay Singh, S/o Shri Jagannath Singh, Aged About 43 Years R/o- Adinath Parisar, Bungalow No. 04, Ganga Nagar Phase 02, Mangla, P.S. Civil Lines, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saqib Ahmed, PL Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 08/09/2025 1. Heard Mr. Ravindra Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Saqib Ahmed learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 1/State. RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.09.08 18:03:39 +0530 2 CRMP No. 2804 of 2025 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and may kindly be pleased to quash the First Information Report No. 528/2025 registered at P.S. Civil Lines, distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) on 09/05/2025 for the offence punishable U/s 420 of the IPC, charge- sheet No. 497/2025 dated 08/06/2025 filed for the offence U/s 318 (4) of B.N.S (420 of the IPC) and the order of taking cognizance dated 16/06/2025 in Criminal Case No. 20955/2025 pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) in the interest of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/accused, an Engineer in the Railway Department, was on cordial terms with the complainant (respondent No. 2) and in October 2019 allegedly assured him of securing employment for his wife in the Railway Department by using his contacts with higher officials, for which he demanded a one-time payment of ₹10,00,000/- and also asked the respondent No.2 to arrange relevant documents. It is alleged that in July 2022, the petitioner informed that an interview for the post of Clerk was scheduled in August 2022 and, acting on this assurance, the complainant arranged the said amount from his father and handed it over in cash at his brother’s shop in the presence of witnesses, but no interview was conducted and later, in March 2023, the petitioner informed that the recruitment process had been cancelled, thereafter on demand for refund, the petitioner lingered for a year and ultimately issued a cheque of ₹5,00,000/- promising to 3 CRMP No. 2804 of 2025 return the balance in cash, however the cheque was dishonored on presentation and despite repeated requests the amount was not repaid, whereupon the complainant first lodged a written complaint before police officials but no action was taken, leading him to move an application under Section 175(3) B.N.S.S. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, which was allowed and consequently FIR No. 528/2025 at P.S. Civil Lines was registered, investigation was conducted and charge sheet No. 497/2025 under Section 318(4) B.N.S. was filed, on which basis the trial court took cognizance and registered Criminal Case No. 20995/2025, presently pending for arguments before charge, while the petitioner has been released on bail having cooperated throughout the investigation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated by the complainant/respondent No. 2. There is no material on record to show that the complainant ever paid a sum of ₹10,00,000/- to the petitioner for securing employment for his wife in the Railway Department. On the contrary, the transaction between the parties was purely a loan transaction of ₹5,00,000/-, for which the petitioner had issued a cheque of the same amount. The said cheque has been misused by the complainant to lodge the present FIR with the sole intention of falsely implicating the petitioner. It is further submitted that no complaint has been filed under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the FIR itself has been lodged after an unexplained delay of more than five years, which 4 CRMP No. 2804 of 2025 prima facie reflects mala fide intention on the part of the complainant to extort money from the petitioner. Learned counsel would contend that there is no evidence to establish that the petitioner had ever allured the complainant with assurances of a job for his wife. The dispute, at its core, is purely a money transaction of civil nature and has been deliberately given a criminal colour. Hence, the impugned FIR, the charge-sheet, and the consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar Shrivas & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., SLP (Crl.) No. 9800 of 2023. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State, ex adverso, would strongly oppose the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submit that the allegations in the present case are grave and disclose clear ingredients of cheating and criminal breach of trust. It is specifically alleged that the petitioner, taking advantage of his position as an Engineer in the Railway Department and his cordial relations with the complainant, induced the complainant by making false assurances of securing employment for his wife in the Railway Department, demanded a whopping amount of ₹10,00,000/- as one-time settlement, and actually received the said amount in cash in presence of witnesses. Despite receiving the money, no recruitment took place, and later the petitioner kept postponing the matter for years together. Ultimately, when pressed for refund, the petitioner himself issued a cheque of ₹5,00,000/-, which was dishonoured on presentation, and still he failed to return the 5 CRMP No. 2804 of 2025 remaining amount. These facts clearly establish dishonest intention right from inception. It is further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that it was merely a loan transaction is an afterthought and does not inspire confidence, particularly when multiple witnesses have attested to the handing over of ₹10,00,000/- in cash. The dishonour of cheque and non-return of the balance amount fortify the complainant’s case of deception. The delay in lodging the FIR stands explained by the repeated assurances given by the petitioner, and delay by itself cannot wipe out the criminality involved. It is settled law that at the stage of quashing, the Court is not expected to appreciate the defence of the accused or conduct a mini-trial. The allegations in the FIR, if taken at face value, clearly make out the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the B.N.S. / Section 420 IPC. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the FIR, charge-sheet and consequential proceedings is misconceived and deserves to be rejected at the threshold. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned FIR, charge sheet as also the order taking cognizance by the trial Court. 7. On a bare perusal of the material available on record, it is manifest that the petitioner/accused, by taking advantage of his friendship with respondent No. 2 as well as his position in the Railway Department, induced respondent No. 2 to arrange a sum of ₹10,00,000/- on the assurance that he would secure employment for his wife in the Railway. On the basis of such assurance, respondent No. 2 arranged and paid the 6 CRMP No. 2804 of 2025 said amount, but the petitioner failed to fulfill his promise and also failed to return the money allegedly received, thereby prima facie committing the offence of cheating. As regards the submission of the petitioner that issuance of cheque of ₹ 5,00,000/- to the Complainant is only towards a repayment of a loan transaction, it is significant to note that no loan agreement or document has been placed on record in support of such plea. Insofar as the contention regarding delay and laches is concerned, the material on record reveals that the respondent initially approached the police, and upon no action being taken, filed an application before the competent court. The learned Magistrate, after appreciating the facts and circumstances, directed registration of the FIR. Pursuant thereto, FIR was registered, investigation was conducted, and charge sheet No. 497/2025 under Section 318(4) B.N.S. was filed. The trial court has taken cognizance and registered Criminal Case No. 20995/2025, which is presently pending for arguments before charge. The petitioner has also been released on bail after having cooperated during investigation. Thus, it cannot be said that there was any undue delay in reporting the matter. With regard to the reliance placed by the petitioner on Deepak Kumar Shrivas (supra), the same is distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case, as here the petitioner obtained money on the assurance of securing employment for respondent No. 2’s wife, whereas the factual matrix in the cited case was entirely different. In the present case, the petitioner himself has issued a cheque of ₹ 5,00,000/- to the Complainant, which implidely an acceptance to the alleged act, as there 7 CRMP No. 2804 of 2025 is no document or fact placed by the petitioner to show that the cheque was issued to the Complainant for repayment of loan amount. 8. The allegations in the present case are grave and prima facie disclose the ingredients of cheating and criminal breach of trust, clearly establishing dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner from inception. The contention that it was merely a loan transaction is an afterthought and does not inspire confidence in absence of supporting document. Further, the dishonour of the cheque and the petitioner’s failure to return the balance amount fortify the complainant’s allegation of deception. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of quashing, the Court is not expected to appreciate the defence of the accused or conduct a mini-trial. The allegations in the FIR, if taken at their face value, clearly constitute the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the B.N.S. / Section 420 IPC. 9. The jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR, or charge-sheet is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly. Courts ordinarily do not interfere with investigations of cognizable offences. FIRs may be quashed only where allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence. In State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 605, the Apex Court held that quashing is permissible in rare cases, such as where allegations are frivolous, inherently improbable, or mala fide. Similarly, in Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill, reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259, and Medchl Chemicals 8 CRMP No. 2804 of 2025 & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd., reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, it was held that a prima facie case prevents quashing, though patently absurd allegations may be quashed. Further, in Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Court emphasized that Courts cannot probe the reliability of allegations at the threshold. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 540, it was reiterated that probabilities of the prosecution case or mala fide intent cannot be assessed at the quashing stage. 10. Applying the aforesaid principles, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be examined at this stage. Adjudication of factual disputes, appreciation of evidence, or assessment of credibility does not fall within the scope of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. On the basis of the material presently available on record, it cannot be held that the criminal proceedings are manifestly mala fide or instituted with an ulterior motive to harass the accused. It is well settled that FIRs or criminal proceedings can be quashed only in strict conformity with the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions. 11. In view of the above discussion, the present petition is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Gowri