1 2025:CGHC:48452-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2955 of 2025 1. Navnit Kumar Pandey S/o Kameshwar Pandey Aged About 52 Years R/o Shivam Garden, Phase-1, Flat No. 02, Kilburn Colony, P.S.- Doranda (Ranchi), District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. Balram Pathak S/o Damodar Pathak Aged About 62 Years R/o Village- Lohdi, Daltonganj, Palamu, Jharkhand. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station- Gandhinagar, District- Sarguja (C.G.) 2. Deoraj Yadav S/o Surajman Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Amgaon, P/s Kamleshwarpur, Surguja (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 22.09.2025 1. Heard Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 1/State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.09.23 10:58:17 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: “A. The Hon’ble Court kindly be pleased to quash/set- aside FIR No. 519 of 2024 dated 04.09.2024 (Annexure P/1) registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.), in the interest of justice. B. The Hon’ble Court kindly be pleased to quash the charge-sheet filed by the respondent bearing final report No. 68 of 2025, dated 17.03.2025 in FIR No. 519 of 2024 dated 04.09.2025 registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.). C. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order of taking cognizance dated 19.03.2025 passed by Special Case (PDI) No. 1/2025 pending before Special Judge (PDI), Ambikapur, Sarguja under Section 420(34) of IPC, Sections 4, 5 Circulation of Money Act and Section 10 of CG Protection of Depositors Interest Act. D. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceedings in Special Case (PDI) No. 1/2025 pending before Special Judge (PDI) Ambikapur, Sarguja. E. That, Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order of framing charges in criminal case No. Special Case (PDI) No. 1/2025 framing charges against the petitioners under Section 420(34) of IPC, Section 4, 5 Circulation of Money Act and Section 10 CG Protection of Depositors Interest Act by Special Case (PDI) No. 1/2025 pending before Special Judge 3 (PDI) Ambikapur Sarguja.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 04.09.2024, the complainant, Deoraj Yadav, lodged a written report at Gandhinagar Police Station alleging that employees and officers of Welfare Building and Estate Private Limited Company, Ambikapur (Surguja) Branch (for short, ‘Company’), namely the Director B. Sandhyawali, the Managing Director Malla Vijay Prasad, and the Regional Manager Shashi Bhushan Chourasiya, along with other persons, had enticed investors by promising to double their investments and to pay higher rates of interest. The complainant averred that, after receiving money from investors, the said persons failed to return the invested amounts, thereby committing breach of trust and cheating the investors. On the basis of that complaint, a crime was registered and, after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on 17.03.2025. Cognizance was taken by the learned trial Court on 19.03.2025 against petitioner No.1. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated. It is pointed out that the written complaint specifies wrongful conduct on the part of the Director, the Managing Director, and the Regional Manager of the Company, and no specific role has been attributed to the present petitioners. According to learned counsel, the petitioners were not promoters, partners, managers, employees, or any other persons responsible for the conduct of the financial operations or management of the Company. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the 4 complainant himself acted as an agent of the Company and admits in his complaint that he associated with the Company after verifying registration documents and being assured that the Company was lawfully registered. The complainant used to collect funds from investors and deposit the same into the Company’s accounts, receiving commission for such collections. The Company is engaged in real estate with branches in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal, Jharkhand, and Ambikapur (C.G.). It is submitted that the Company is not registered with the National Housing Bank or the Reserve Bank of India as it falls within the real-estate/builders category, and the Securities and Exchange Board of India examined the Company and no adverse action was pressed. 6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.2 is a retired government servant who invested his personal savings in the Company, received payments in time, and was later requested by the Company to narrate his experience at promotional meetings. It is contended that the Company suffered losses during the COVID pandemic and became temporarily unable to meet certain payments. The principal shareholders and persons primarily liable are Malla Vijaya Prasad, Madduri Sreenivasa Rao, and Akkireddi Sarveswara Rao. Therefore, it is argued that the petitioners cannot be held liable for the Company’s disputed obligations because they were neither Directors nor office-bearers otherwise responsible for its financial transactions. It is also submitted that petitioner No.1 was granted regular bail vide order dated 29.04.2025 in MCRC No. 2674 of 5 2025, whereas petitioner No.2’s anticipatory bail application (MCRCA No. 1295 of 2025) was withdrawn on 26.08.2025 in view of statutory bars under Sections 4, 5, and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interest Act. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that on 02.08.2025, the complainant, Deoraj Yadav purportedly executed a mutual agreement at Visakhapatnam with the Directors of the Company to withdraw FIR No. 519/2024. It is also submitted that the Director had, by declaration dated 17.06.2024, stated that petitioner No. 2 was only an advisory member with no responsibility for financial transactions or customer payments, and that the Company’s transactions were conducted through the Company’s bank accounts. It is argued that the conduct complained of is civil in nature — disputes about business returns — rather than a criminal offence. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the petition, submitting that the investigation was conducted strictly in accordance with law, and the charge-sheet was filed after collecting prima facie evidence, including statements of investors and company records. Petitioner No.1, as Zonal Area Manager, actively participated in promotional meetings and investor presentations where potential investors were assured of high returns and doubling of investments, thereby facilitating the collection of funds. Petitioner No.2, as Advisory Head, also attended promotional events and narrated experiences to attract investments, contributing to the allurement of investors. 6 9. It was further submitted by the learned State counsel that both petitioners, though not directors, played a role in inducing investors and were thus implicated in the scheme of alleged cheating and breach of trust. Prima facie material exists against them, and a trial is necessary to determine the extent of their involvement. A private settlement with the complainant or declarations by Directors cannot absolve the petitioners at this stage, and quashing the FIR or charge-sheet would amount to stifling prosecution without trial. 10. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 11. The question before the Court is whether extraordinary jurisdiction should be exercised to quash (i) for petitioner No.1, the FIR, charge- sheet, cognizance order, and charge-framing order; and (ii) for petitioner No.2, the FIR. 12. The investigation has culminated in a charge-sheet and the learned trial Court has taken cognizance and framed charges against petitioner No.1. A charge-sheet followed by cognizance indicates that prima facie material was found by the Investigating Officer which warranted trial. Once charges are framed, the scope for interference is even narrower. As held in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), quashing is permissible only where allegations taken at face value do not constitute any offence. 13. Petitioner No.1’s plea that he was not responsible for the Company’s affairs is contradicted by the charge-sheet and prosecution 7 material, which indicate that he, as Zonal Area Manager, actively participated in promotional meetings, investor presentations, and events where potential investors were assured of high returns and doubling of investments. The evidence prima facie suggests that he played a role in allurement of investors, facilitating the collection of funds, and thereby contributing to the alleged scheme of cheating and breach of trust. Whether this role involves criminal liability is a matter of evidence to be examined at trial. This Court, in exercise of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), cannot weigh evidence or pre-empt findings of fact. 14. The fact that the complainant, Deoraj Yadav, subsequently entered into a settlement dated 02.08.2025 with the Directors does not absolve petitioners No.1 and No. 2, as the compromise, if any, was solely with Deoraj Yadav, whereas the complaint/FIR dated 04.09.2024 indicates that several other investors also lodged complaints, alleging that the Company had duped them of their money. The total amount involved is approximately Rs. 9 crores. These investors have not reached any compromise with the co-accused, who are the Directors of the Company. It has also been noted that other FIRs have been filed against the Company’s Directors across the country. Furthermore, a perusal of prayer ‘E’ in the present petition shows that, even though charges have not yet been framed against Petitioner No.2, the petitioners’ counsel seeks quashing of the charge-framing order. This suggests that the prayer may have been drafted without a thorough review of the case record. 8 15. In view of the above, no case is made out for quashing the FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order, or charge-framing order against Petitioner No.1. He has already been granted regular bail, and his defence can be fully advanced during the trial. 16. Petitioner No. 2 seeks quashing of the FIR. The charge-sheet and prosecution material indicate that, although he was designated as an Advisory Head, he participated in investor promotion meetings, shared experiences, and encouraged potential investors to deposit funds. Prima facie, these actions suggest his involvement in attracting investors and facilitating the alleged misappropriation of funds. His claim that he was only an advisory member with no financial responsibility is a matter of defence and cannot be determinative at this stage. Quashing the FIR and charge-sheet at this juncture would effectively stifle the prosecution without a trial, which is impermissible under law. Moreover, Petitioner No.2 remains absconding yet approaches this Court seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. 17. In view of the foregoing, the petition is devoid of merit. The prayers for quashing the FIR, charge-sheet, order taking cognizance, and charge-framing order against Petitioner No.1 are rejected. Similarly, the prayer for quashing the FIR against Petitioner No.2 is also rejected. 18. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. The learned trial Court shall proceed with the trial strictly in accordance with law. Nothing stated herein shall prejudice the defence of the petitioners at trial. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan