1 2025:CGHC:47678-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2905 of 2025 Rajesh Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Dhaniram Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village - Kumhari, P.S. Gidhouri, Distt. - Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Balodabazar, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Purnima Yadav W/o Shri Gopal Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Kumhari, P.S. - Gidhouri, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent /State : Mr. Malay Jain, 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 / 202 5 1. Heard Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 ‘BNSS’) with the following prayers :- “It is therefore, prayed that the instant petition may kindly be allowed and FIR of Crime No. 116/2025 dated 16.05.2025 registered at P.S. Gidhouri, Distt. - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for commission of offence u/s 318(4) of BNS against the petitioner may kindly be quashed, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/Respondent No. 2 lodged a report at Police Station Gidhouri on 16.05.2025 stating that she had entered into an agreement to sell two parcels of land in her village Kumhari to the petitioner/accused, Rajesh Kumar Sahu, for a total consideration of Rs. 57,60,000/-. She received an advance payment of Rs. 3,00,000/-, and the petitioner/accused promised to pay the remaining amount at the time of registration. At the time of executing the sale deed, the accused gave two cheques to the complainant-one for Rs. 8,00,000/-and another for Rs.46,60,000/-. While the cheque of Rs.8,00,000/- was successfully encashed, the second cheque for Rs. 46,60,000/- was dishonoured by the bank due to a mismatch in the accused's signature and insufficient funds in his account. It is further alleged that the accused took advantage of the complainant's illiteracy, failed to mention the agreed sale amount in the sale deed, and deliberately concealed the actual sale consideration. By doing so, the accused fraudulently deceived the complainant and misappropriated Rs. 46,60,000/-. Based on this complaint, FIR was registered at Police Station Gidhauri (Tundra) as Crime No. 3 116/2025 under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 4. The petitioner apprehending his arrest moved an application before this Court seeking anticipatory bail which was registered as MCRCA No. 1165 of 2025 and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 31.07.2025 and the petitioner was enlarged on anticipatory bail and the investigation is pending against him. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that even if the allegations made in the impugned FIR are taken at their face value, do not constitute the ingredients of the offence under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He further argued that a sale deed was executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 on 07.03.2025 with respect to the land bearing khasra No. 51/2, 51/4 total area 0.153 Hectare situated at village & post Kumhari, P.C.N. 04, R.N.M. Gidhouri, Tahsil Tundra, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for a consideration of Rs.8,00,000/- for which the petitioner had given a cheque bearing No. 286694 of Rs. 8,00,000/- which has been encashed by the respondent No. 2. He also argued that a blank cheque of petitioner bearing No. 286695 of Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit was lost on 07.03.2025 for which the petitioner had given information to the SHO Gidhouri Tundra, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) and also given information to the 4 Branch Manager, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Raipur Branch Tundra on 28.03.2025. He submitted that the respondent No. 2 has misused the said cheque mentioning the amount and making forged signature of the petitioner and filed the complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the JMFC Kasdol, the said complaint case is registered on 29.04.2025 and notice has been issued to the petitioner and after filing of the case u/s 138 NIA, respondent No. 2/complainant along with her mother filed the Civil Suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 07.03.2025 and declaring that the sale deed is not binding upon the plaintiffs, in the said case also the notice has been issued to the petitioner and civil suit is pending before the Civil Judge Senior Division Kasdol, Distt. Balodazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). He further submitted that after filing of the complaint and civil suit, the respondent No.2 has lodged the FIR on 16.05.2025 leveling various allegations against the petitioner though in the sale deed nowhere the amount of Rs. 57,60,000/- has been mentioned in sale consideration and nowhere the cheque No. 286695 amounting Rs. 46,60,000/-has been mentioned in the registered sale deed. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that once the FIR has been registered, it has to be investigated and taken to its logical end. Thus, at this stage, no interference is warranted in view of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of 5 Maharashtra & others, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 9. From perusal of the FIR (Annexure P/1), it transpires that the complainant / respondent No.2 had entered into an agreement to sell two parcels of land in her village Kumhari to the petitioner/accused, Rajesh Kumar Sahu, for a total consideration of Rs. 57,60,000/-. She received an advance payment of Rs.3,00,000/-, and the petitioner/accused promised to pay the remaining amount at the time of registration. At the time of 6 executing the sale deed, the accused gave two cheques to the complainant-one for Rs. 8,00,000/-and another for Rs.46,60,000/-. While the cheque of Rs.8,00,000/- was successfully encashed, the second cheque for Rs. 46,60,000/- was dishonoured by the bank due to a mismatch in the accused's signature and insufficient funds in his account. It is further alleged that the accused took advantage of the complainant's illiteracy, failed to mention the agreed sale amount in the sale deed, and deliberately concealed the actual sale consideration. By doing so, the accused fraudulently deceived the complainant and misappropriated Rs.46,60,000/-. Thus, it cannot be said that prima facie no cognizable ofence is made out. Hence, the same has to be investigated by the police. 10. Thus, after having examined the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned F.I.R., we are of the opinion that the impugned F.I.R. discloses cognizable offence against the petitioner, hence, no interference is called for by this Court in its inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing of the F.I.R. or for grant of any interim relief to the petitioner and also in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra