1 2025:CGHC:52667-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3069 of 2025 1 - Rajkumar Sanklecha S/o Late Shri Nathmal Ji Sanklecha Aged About 58 Years R/o Sanklecha Jewellers, Sadar Bazar, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - Ghewar Sanklecha (Ghewar Chand Sanklecha) S/o Late Shri Nathmal Sanklecha Aged About 72 Years R/o Sanklecha Jewellers, Sadar Bazar, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Kotwali, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Deepali Soni W/o Late Shri Durgesh Soni Aged About 36 Years R/o Mahima Sagar Ward, Behind Government School Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondents __________________________________________________________ For Petitioners : Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Siddharth Tiwari, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29.10.2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners for the following prayer :- “3.1 It is therefore, prayed that his Hon’ble AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.10.31 10:43:42 +0530 2 Court be kind enough to allow the instant petition; 3.2 graciously be pleased to quash the impugned Charge-Sheet No. 318/2024 dated 13/10/2024 (originated from F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 430/2023 dated 28/10/2023) (Annexure-P/1) for the alleged offence punishable U/S. 420, 406, 34 of the I.P.C. pending consideration in Criminal Case No. 2009/2024 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Dhamtari (CG) qua the Petitioners; 3.3 graciously be pleased to quash the order taking cognizance dated 25/10/2024 (Annexure-P/2) passed in Criminal Case No. 2009/2024 by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District - Dhamtari (CG) and the entire criminal proceedings qua the Petitioners in the interest of justice.” 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Res. No-2/Complainant allegedly submitted an application U/s. 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari (CG) leveling accusation against 7 persons namely Taslima @ Pinki Khan, Sahil Khan, Rahil Khan, Sangeeta Yadav, Rajkumar Sanklecha, Ghevar Sanklecha & Sanjay Sanklecha basically with the following allegations :- (i) the complainant is acquainted with the accused Taslima @ Pinki Khan as the later had helped complainant in obtaining some loan in 2018. The husband of the complainant was proprietor of a jewelry shop viz. M/s. 3 Durgesh Jewelers at Dhamtari, unfortunately who died in February 2019 in a road accident leaving behind about 35 tola gold and 10 Kg. silver apart from other assets. After his death the complainant was facing financial crunch. After death of husband of complainant, the accused no. Taslima @ Pinki Khan came to know about financial crisis of complainant and gave an alluring offer that if she (complainant) gives her gold and silver jewelry the accused would place them under pledge and would give her 50,000/- per month. Complainant accepted the offer and gave her all gold and silver jewelry items. The accused Taslima @ Pinki Khan and accused Sangeeta Yadav placed jewelry under pledge and started using money received against jewelry for themselves. The accused persons used to give a meager amount of money to complainant and stopped giving money after February' 2020. Upon being repeatedly asked for money, the accused Taslima @ Pinki Khan admitted that she in connivance with accused Sahil Khan, Rahil Khan & Sangeeta Yadav, has deceitfully obtained jewelry from complainant and has placed them under pledge in shop of Sanklecha Jewelers and they have used money received against jewelry for themselves; (ii) When the complainant made requests for return of her jewelry, the accused Taslima @ Pinki Khan, Sahil Khan, Rahil Khan & Sangeeta Yadav had abused her, manhandled her and threatened her of dire consequences. Thereafter, 4 the complainant reported the matter to police and the accused Taslima @ Pinki Khan had admitted that she has placed the jewelry items under pledge and would soon manage to return them to complainant. The accused Taslima @ Pinki Khan took the complainant to shop of the petitioners herein, where she found all her jewelry items there. The complainant had made various complaints and put in many efforts, but due to inaction of police authorities she could not get justice, hence, she preferred an application U/s. 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. before the learned C.J.M., Dhamtari. Thereafter, the learned C.J.M., Dhamtari allowed the said application and directed the Police Station - Kotwali of District - Dhamtari to register F.I.R. and to hold investigation. In compliance of the order passed by the C.J.M., PS-Kotwali registered the F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 430/2023 dated 28/10/2023 for commission of alleged offence U/Ss. 420, 406 of the IPC and started investigation. 3. (I) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any wrong, much less an offence, and have been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the entire charge-sheet, does not disclose commission of the alleged offence on its face value, rather the allegations appear to be highly improbable, baseless, frivolous and as vague as it could be. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceeding on such false and improbable allegations is an abuse of process of law as well as of 5 the Court. Learned counsel submits that uncontroverted allegations do not make out a prima-facie case against the petitioners and they should not be compelled to unnecessarily undergo the long process of protected trial and the pending criminal proceedings can be quashed at initial stage itself. (II) Learned counsel further submits that a perusal of the impugned charge-sheet does not disclose factum of deceiving fraudulently or dishonestly inducing the complainant to deliver her valuables to the petitioners herein and thereby causing damage or harm to her property constituting a case of cheating. The impugned charge- sheet does not reveal that the complainant has ever come into contact with the petitioners for placing under pledge her valuables, rather it is the case of prosecution itself that, the accused Taslima @ Pinki Khan in connivance with accused Sahil Khan, Rahil Khan & Sangeeta Yadav, has deceitfully obtained jewelry from complainant and placed them under pledge in shop of the petitioners. Therefore, prima-facie, no case is made out against the petitioners and hence, the petition is liable to be allowed. 4. (A) Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that one of the accused namely Taslima Khan, who was having known relationship with the Respondent No. 2/Complainant used visit home of Respondent No. 2/Complainant and regularly told about ways to earn livelihood from the gold and silver. Taslima Khan fraudulently pledged the 350 Grams of gold and 10 Kilograms of silver with the jewellery shop of Petitioners. Learned counsel 6 submits that when Taslima Khan refused to return the gold and silver, the Respondent No. 2/Complainant enquired about the same upon which Taslima Khan in video recording has admitted that the gold and silver are with the Petitioner's and upon which the Respondent No. 2/Complainant visited Petitioner's shop where the Petitioners showed all the gold and silver to the Respondent No. 2/Complainant but did not returned the same despite repeated requests. (B) Learned counsel further submitted that when Police Complaint and other legal proceedings were lodged, petitioners made fraudulent entry in the register which is very much evident from the copy received from RTI. Learned counsel further submits that the basic case is that the Petitioners have fraudulently kept the gold and silver of the Respondent No. 2/Complainant through co- accused Taslima Khan and therefore the Petitioners are liable to face the trial to whereby the learned trial Court can ascertain the liability of each of the accused. The entire dispute is of 10 KG of Silver and 350 Grams of Gold which were in the custody of the Petitioners but by making fraudulently entry in the register, they only surrendered 5002 Grams of Silver and 40.840 Grams of Gold as per the seizure memo. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents. 6. The complainant is the widow of Late Durgesh Soni, who was having a jewellery shop and after his death, the co-accused Taslima 7 @ Pinky Khan, who is having cordial relation with the complainant used to visit her home and allured the complainant to hand over the gold and silver ornaments to her and in turn, she will give Rs.50,000/- per month. Subsequently said Taslima @ Pinky khan pledged the ornaments i.e. 350 gms of gold and 10 kgs of silver with the jewellery shop of the petitioner. When the co-accused Taslima did not give the amount to the complainant, she requested her to return the ornaments, but the co-accused has not responded to the said request of the complainant. In the meanwhile, the complainant came to know that the said ornaments were pledged with the petitioners. It appears from the material available on record that the ornaments have been pledged by the co-accused with the petitioners and the same have been kept by the petitioners. When the same were demanded by the complainant though the petitioners have accepted possession of the ornaments but refused to return back the entire ornaments to the complainant. Given that the dispute involves substantial quantities of gold and silver and the petitioners’ role in retaining the same through deceitful means, it is clear that a prima-facie case is made out against them. Such conduct demonstrates prima-facie fraudulent intent and misappropriation of the complainant’s property. 7. In view of the above, it is evident that the petitioners were in actual possession of the valuables belonging to the complainant and failed to return the same despite repeated requests. The allegations against the petitioners are not merely based on presumptions but supported by material evidence, including the admission that the 8 gold and silver were with the petitioners, as well as entries in the shop register that indicate fraudulent handling of the property. Given that the dispute involves substantial quantities of gold and silver and the petitioners' role in retaining the same through deceitful means, it is clear that a prima-facie case is made out against them. Apart from that, the facts clearly indicate that the petitioners were in custody of the entire 10 KG of silver and 350 grams of gold belonging to the complainant but deliberately made fraudulent entries in their register to under report the quantities, surrendering only 5002 grams of silver and 40.840 grams of gold as per the seizure memo. Hence, we are not inclined to grant relief as sought for by the petitioners in the present petition at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/ Amardeep