1 CRMP No. 3443 of 2024 2025:CGHC:43192-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3443 of 2024 1 - Aanand Vardhan Govind Dixit S/o Late Awadh Narayan Dixit Aged About 57 Years Presently R/o Village Sarne, P.S. Alinagar, District- Chandouli ( Uttar Pradesh ) 2 - Aatankmardan Dixit S/o Late Awadh Narayan Dixit Aged About 52 Years Presently R/o Village Sarne, P.S. Alinagar, District- Chandouli ( Uttar Pradesh ) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- S.H.O. Police Station Sankra District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 2 - Gourav Agrawal S/o Pradeep Agrawal Aged About 34 Years Director Nilanchal Insdustries Pvt. Ltd. R/o 309 National Corporate Park Opposite Maruti Business Park G.E. Road Raipur P.S. Purani Basti District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishikant Sinha, Advocate For State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, PL For Resp. No. 2 ; Mr. Surfaraz Khan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.08.26 17:33:24 +0530 2 CRMP No. 3443 of 2024 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 26/08/2025 1. The petitioner has preferred the present CRMP under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking quashment of the FIR (Annexure P/1) dated 26.10.2024, registered at Police Station Sankra, District Mahasamund (C.G.), for offences under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC, lodged by the complainant/respondent No. 2 against the petitioner 2. Facts as projected in the petition are that on the written report of respondent no. 2/Complainant, Crime No. 143/2024 was registered at Police Station Sankra, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for offences under Sections 420 and 34 of IPC against the petitioners. The allegation is that respondent no. 2 entered into an agreement dated 04.01.2022 with Late Awadh Narayan Dixit (father of the petitioners) for purchase of land bearing Khasra Nos. 406, 407, 408, 409, total area 7.180 hectares at Village Lohrakot, District Mahasamund. Pursuant to the agreement, amounts of ₹40,00,000/- and ₹50,00,000/- were transferred through RTGS into the account of Late Awadh Narayan Dixit on 05.01.2022 and 08.02.2022. On 10.02.2022, Awadh Narayan Dixit expired at the age of 80 years. It is alleged that thereafter the petitioners, being legal heirs, were bound to execute the sale deed but they neither executed the same nor refunded the amount, thereby cheating the complainant. Based on these allegations, FIR dated 26.10.2024 was lodged. 3 CRMP No. 3443 of 2024 3. Learned counsel would submit that the FIR is liable to be quashed as it discloses no offence under Sections 420 and 34 IPC. The agreement in question was executed solely with Late Awadh Narayan Dixit, father of the petitioners, who unfortunately passed away shortly thereafter. The petitioners were never parties to the agreement, nor did they receive any money under it. Furthermore, the amount deposited in the account of Late Awadh Narayan has already been returned to the complainant, thereby negating any element of cheating or dishonest intention. Hence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No. 2 candidly admits that the petitioners have already returned the agreement amount and the said fact is not in dispute. 5. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 6. Having considered the submissions and perused the record, it is clear that the impugned FIR is founded entirely on an agreement to sell executed between respondent no. 2 and Late Awadh Narayan Dixit, father of the petitioners. The petitioners were not signatories to the said agreement, nor is there any allegation that they induced the complainant or received any money in their individual capacity. The subsequent demise of Late Awadh Narayan rendered performance of the agreement uncertain, and no independent act of the petitioners has been shown so as to attract criminal liability. 4 CRMP No. 3443 of 2024 7. It also stands admitted by learned counsel for respondent no. 2 that the entire amount advanced under the agreement has already been returned by the petitioners. In such circumstances, the element of dishonest intention or wrongful gain, which is sine qua non for constituting the offence of cheating, is absent. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the allegations in the FIR do not make out the ingredients of the offences under Sections 420 and 34 IPC. The complainant has already been restituted, and continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no purpose except harassment of the petitioners. The FIR dated 26.10.2024, registered at Police Station Sankra, District Mahasamund (C.G.) in Crime No. 143/2024, is accordingly quashed. 9. Accordingly, the CRMP is allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul