1 2025:CGHC:48052 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1442 of 2025 Siddharth Chaturvedi S/o Shri S.K. Chaturvedi Aged About 40 Years R/o C-2c Pocket 2 Flats N 76 Janak Puri, West Delhi, District Delhi. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. City Kotwali, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Swajeet Singh Ubeja, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.09.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 816/2023 registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Ghanshyam Dalmiya, paid a total sum of Rs. 2,48,31,588/- through RTGS on different dates to the present accused and, in addition, paid a cash amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- towards the purchase of a Toyota LC 300. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 The complainant was issued an invoice for the said payments. However, despite the passage of considerable time, the accused failed to deliver the vehicle as agreed. Consequently, on 21.11.2023, the complainant lodged an FIR against the present accused and his entire family. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the applicant is the proprietor of a registered company under the Companies Act, having its head office in New Delhi. It is submitted that the complainant and the applicant were engaged in a purely commercial transaction wherein the complainant desired to purchase a vehicle that was not available in the Indian market and could only be procured through import, which is the line of business of the applicant. The complainant was clearly informed that the import process would take considerable time. Subsequently, an agreement dated 15.12.2023 was executed between the parties, pursuant to which the applicant paid a total amount of Rs. 2,85,00,000/- to the complainant through cheque and demand draft and also provided a luxury vehicle (Land Rover) worth Rs. 1.60 crore, bearing registration number HR-26-R-9009, thereby settling the entire dispute. Despite this, the complainant has lodged an FIR on 21.11.2023 falsely implicating the applicant and his family members. A bare perusal of the FIR reveals that it pertains to a civil dispute and does not contain the basic ingredients of Section 420 IPC, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even if the allegations are taken at face value, no offence under Section 420 3 IPC is made out. It is, therefore, evident that the complainant has misused the process of law with the sole intention of harassing the applicant, and the FIR is false, frivolous, and malicious. He further submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents. Therefore he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel for the non-applicant/State, would oppose the bail application of the applicant and submits that the complainant, Ghanshyam Dalmiya, paid a total sum of Rs. 2,48,31,588/- through RTGS on different dates to the present accused and, in addition, paid a cash amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- towards the purchase of a Toyota LC 300. The complainant was issued an invoice for the said payments. However, despite the passage of considerable time, the accused failed to deliver the vehicle as agreed, therefore he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, and the material placed on record, it is evident that the dispute between the parties arises out of a purely commercial transaction. The applicant has already executed an agreement dated 15.12.2023, pursuant to which he has paid a sum of Rs. 2,85,00,000/- to the complainant through cheque and demand draft and has also handed over a luxury vehicle valued at Rs. 1.60 crore, thereby settling the dispute. A bare perusal of the FIR indicates that it primarily reflects a civil dispute and does not disclose the basic 4 ingredients of cheating as required under Section 420 IPC and further the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. Hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Siddharth Chaturvedi, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) The applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) The applicant shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan