1 2025:CGHC:13833 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2776 of 2023 1 - Om Prakash Sharma S/o Late Ram Pravesh Sharma Aged About 38 Years R/o Kelo Vihar Colony, Near SECL Colony Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. City Kotwali, Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dharnidhar Bajpai S/o Late Leeladhar Bajpai Aged About 63 Years R/o Near Ramleela Maidan Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate. For State : Shri Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Prashan Dansena, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 22.03.2025 Per, Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 1 Present is a Criminal Misc. Petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing of the FIR, charge sheet and further consequential proceeding of the Criminal Case No.948 of 2023 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh. Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.03.27 18:07:23 +0530 2 2 Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is an accused in the FIR of Crime No.71 of 2023, registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 IPC which was registered on the complaint made by one Dharnidhar Bajpai/respondent No.2. On 19.01.2023 the FIR was registered against the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner Om Prakash Sharma was the Branch Manager of Sahara India, Kabir Chowk Branch, Raigarh. In the year, 2018 he allured him that if he deposits his amount with Sahara India Company, he will get higher return than bank interest and repayment of maturity value is secured. By various means he took him in his confidence and get a huge amount invested with Sahara India in his own name and in the name of his wife Sangeeta Bajpai and given a policy bond to him. He deposited total Rs.35,00,000/-in various schemes of Sahara India. When he examined those 47 policy bonds, he came to know that he applied whitener in the names of beneficiaries of said bonds and written his name as well as his wife’s name as the policy holder and thereby he prepared forged document and cheated him. When he tried to contact him, he evaded to come forward and then a report has been lodged by him on which the FIR was registered. 3 After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner before the trial court where Criminal Case No.948 of 2023 is registered and proceeding is going on. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is only an Agent and he only introduced the petitioner to Sahara India Company and he himself has not obtained any amount from him. The 3 policy bonds were issued in the name of the complainant. There is no dishonest intention of the petitioner to commit forgery or to cheat the complainant. The complainant had already filed WPC No.2355 of 2023 before this court against the Chairman and other Directors of Sahara India Company and raised his claim for refund of the amount deposited by him. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 20.07.2023 observing that the subject matter is already subjudic before the Supreme Court and steps to protect the interest of depositors have already been taken by the Supreme Court. There is no evidence that it is the petitioner who applied whitener and mentioned the name of the complainant in the said policy bond. The complainant himself has stated that he deposited the amount in the account of Sahara India maintained at Bank of Baroda, Branch, Raigarh. He would further submit that Sahara India company never refuse to recognize the said bonds and have not said that said bonds are forged. Therefore, in absence of any cogent and clinching prima facie evidence against the petitioner, the continuance of criminal proceeding is sheer abuse of law as well as court. It is submitted by the petitioner that even the charges have not been framed till date. Therefore, by allowing the petition, the FIR as well as charge sheet and consequential proceeding of Criminal Case No.948 of 2023 pending before the JMFC, Raigarh may be quashed. 5 On the other hand, the counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that on the report made by the complainant/respondent No.2 and after due investigation charge sheet has been filed and the trial court has taken cognizance of 4 the offence where proceeding of criminal case is going on. He would also submit that the grounds raised by the petitioner for quashing FIR as well as charge sheet cannot be decided without recording evidence of the parties. The allegation of cheating and forgery of document is the matter of evidence which is to be led during trial of the court. At this stage it cannot be said that there is no prima facie evidence against the petitioner that no offence has been committed by him. 6 Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant also opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and have submitted that on the assurance given by the petitioner, the complainant have invested huge amount and bonds were given by the petitioner who was the Branch Manager of Sahara India Company at Kabir Chowk Branch, Raigarh. He would also submit that when he verified the said policy bonds it was found that except the name of complainant and his wife, all other details were in computer printed and only the name of complainant and his wife was handwritten that too after applying whitener on it which prima facie shows that the said policy bonds were issued to some other persons and only to cheat the complainant, whitener was applied and name of complainant and his wife were written. Whether or not he has cheated the complainant are to be decided during the course of trial or leading evidence by the parties. He would further submit that the said handwritten entries in the policy bonds were sent for State Examiner of Questioned Document, Police Headquarter, Raipur from where a report was obtained by the police in which it was opined that handwriting in the said policy bonds and handwriting of the petitioner is one and the same which 5 corroborates the allegation levelled in the FIR against the petitioner. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7 We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8 On going through the material annexed with the charge sheet which is also part of present petition, it is quite clear that the respondent No.2/complainant has made allegation that at the instance of petitioner he deposited Rs.35,00,000/- in his name and in the name of his wife to the Sahara India Company and petitioner was the Branch Manager of Sahara India at Kabir Chowk Branch, Raigarh. When policy bonds were given to him, it was found that the names of respondent No.2 and his wife were written after applying whitener over the original name printed therein. The respondent No.2 have also alleged that he has not received its maturity value and when he tried to ask the petitioner for his refund of maturity value, he started evading and ultimately the said Branch of Sahara India was found locked. 9 The nature of allegation and material collected during the investigation prima facie reflects the ingredients of offence of forgery of document and cheating. Whether or not the respondent No.2 have deposited the amount through Bank in the account of Sahara India Company or they have actually issued the said policy bonds in the name of complainant/respondent No.2 or the relevant entries in the policy bond have been made by the petitioner, all are the disputed questions of fact which are to be decided after recording evidence of the parties. 10 In a petition under Section 482 CrPC, exercise of extraordinary inherent jurisdiction in the very nature of present petition is not 6 warranted. It is very difficult for this court to hold that there is no prima facie offence appears to be made out against the petitioner to quash the entire proceeding. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is envisaged under three circumstances namely; (i) to give effect to an order under the code (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. However, in the present case we do not find any ground to interfere with the petition and to quash the entire proceeding of criminal case pending before the JMFC, Raigarh against the petitioner. 11 Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out by the petitioner to quash the FIR as well as the entire proceeding of criminal case pending against him before the trial court. 12 In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma/inder