1 2025:CGHC:52510 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2094 of 2023 1 - Anurag Sharma S/o Late Nathu Lal Sharma Aged About 42 Years R/o G- 37, Meenakshipuram, Ps Ganga Nagar, Tahsil Meerut, District Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, Pin 250001 Presently Residing At H-9/5, Second Floor, Malviya Nagar, Ps Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, Pin 110017 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Superintendent Of Police, District Kanker (C.G.) 2 - Station House Officer Police Station- Chote Bethiya, District Kanker (C.G.) 3 - Dilip Bain S/o Devdas Bain Aged About 45 Years R/o Bazarpara, Village Chote Bethiya, P.S. Chote Bethiya, District Kanker (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anil Tawadkar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 28/10/2025 1. The present criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the criminal proceeding of Special Criminal Case No. 33 VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.11.03 19:02:08 +0530 2 of 2021, pending before the learned Special Judge, North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.), for the offence under Sections 6 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005, Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and Sections 420, 34 of IPC, which is arising out of Crime No. 21 of 2017, registered on 09.10.2017, at police station Chhote Bethiya, District Kanker (C.G.). 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is one of the accused in the offence of Crime No. 21 of 2017, registered at police station Chhote Bethiya, District Kanker for the offence under Sections 6 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005, Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 420, 34 of IPC. The said offence has been registered on the complaint made by the complainant/respondent No.3- Dilip Bain with the allegation that he has deposited his amount with the PACL India Limited Chit Fund company since 2010 in his name and in the name of his wife and deposited a total sum of Rs. 1,94,160/-. The other depositors have also deposited their amount with the said Chit Fund company. They have deposited their amount through the agent Gaurang Hawaladar and his brother Anand Hawaladar. Even after its maturity, their amount have not been returned back to them, therefore, appropriate action may be taken against the Directors and Branch Managers of the said PACL India Limited company. The police has registered the FIR on 09.10.2017. During the investigation, the police have investigated the matter and obtained necessary information 3 from Security and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), who informed them that the said PACL India Limited company is not registered with the SEBI. The details of the Directors and other responsible persons of the company were obtained from the Registrar of Companies and then the Directors and other responsible persons including the petitioner have been arrayed as the accused persons in the case. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the learned trial Court, where the Special Criminal Case No. 33 of 2021 is pending. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the offence. The petitioner is only an employee of the said PACL India Limited company and he joined with the company on 26.09.2011 and resigned on 12.01.2012 from the post of Company Secretary. He is nowhere concerned with the affairs of the company and alleged deposit made by the complainant or other persons. Much after his resignation, the FIR has been lodged and there is no allegation in the FIR that the petitioner had cheated them or had any active role to get the amount deposited by the complainant and other persons. The petitioner was a salary paid employee and has not induced any person fraudulently or any other manner to get their amount deposited with the company. The petitioner was posted at Delhi, whereas the alleged offence is said to have been committed in the District Kanker, which itself shows that, there is no involvement of the petitioner in the offence in question. He would also submit that, earlier the petitioner had challenged the registration of the FIR against him in WPCR No. 555 of 2021 and 4 since the charge sheet has been filed, the petitioner withdrawn the said WPCR No. 555 of 2021 on 27.06.2023 with liberty to file appropriate application under Section 482 of CRPC for quashing of the charge sheet. It is further submitted by him that, from a bare perusal of the FIR as well as other evidence collected during the investigation, no prima facie offence reflected against the petitioner to prosecute him in the alleged offence. He would also submit that the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005 came into force w.e.f. 23.07.2015, whereas the petitioner has already resigned from the company in the year 2012 and the alleged offence is also said to have been committed in the years 2010, 2011 and 2012, and therefore, the provisions of Act of 2005 is not applicable in the present case, therefore, the proceeding of the Special Criminal Case No. 33 of 2021 against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that, from the documents annexed with the charge sheet, it comes that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Company Secretary with the said PACL India Limited company on 26.09.2011. The work of Company Secretary is to manage the financial status of the company. The allegation of the complainant in the present case is that, he and other depositors have deposited their amount with the PACL India Limited company from the year 2010 up to year 2012 and in that period, the petitioner was the Company Secretary of the PACL India Limited company. The petitioner is also liable for the act and business of the company, and considering his involvement with the 5 affairs of the company in the subject period, he has also been arrayed as an accused in the case. There is sufficient material in the record including the undisputed facts that he was the Company Secretary in the PACL India Limited company from 26.09.2011 to 12.01.2012, and therefore, he is rightly been arrayed as an accused and prosecuting in the aforesaid criminal case, and there is no ground to quash the criminal proceeding against him. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. The petitioner is prosecuting for the offence of cheating and under the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act. It is the case of the petitioner himself that, he is an employee of the PACL India Limited company and appointed on 26.09.2011 on the post of Company Secretary and he has resigned on 12.01.2012, therefore, he is having no liability with the affairs of the company. From the complaint made by the complainant it transpires that, he made allegation that he was depositing the monthly installments of Rs. 1780/- from 2010 in the name of his wife, and Rs. 12,500/- and Rs. 720/- monthly in his own name since 2011. It is also alleged that the other depositors have also deposited their amount with the said PACL India Limited company. The bond papers have been seized from the respective depositors, which was also issued in between the period of 2010, 2011 and 2012, which are the period, when the petitioner was also working with the company as Company Secretary. When the petitioner was working as a Company Secretary 6 of the said PACL India Limited company, it cannot be said that he was unaware about its incorporation, affairs or business of the company. In between the period, when the petitioner was employed with the company, regular transactions of depositing money from the depositors were continued and being the Company Secretary, the petitioner was to manage the funds and accounts of the company. Although, the FIR has been registered on 09.10.2017, but the same itself would not absolve the petitioner, because the alleged transactions were of the period, when the petitioner was in the company. The said allegation of cheating and non-refund of the amounts of the depositors was continued up till lodging of the report and in between that period, the Act of 2005 was came into force w.e.f. 23.07.2015. 7. In the case of “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal” 1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed the broad categories of cases, in which the inherent powers under Section 482 of CRPC could be exercised. Para 102 of the decision is relevant, which reads as under:- “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law e enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 7 (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or com-plaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7)) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 8. In M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra an others, AIR OnLine 2021 SC 192, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 23 held as under: 8 “23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/ or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/charge sheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/ FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty); v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process 9 should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences.” 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, material available in the charge sheet and the allegation leveled by the complainant against the petitioner, clearly established prima facie case to file charge sheet against him and to prosecute in the special criminal case. 10. In view of the material available in the charge sheet as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.” (supra), this Court does not find any scope for interference in the present petition to quash the entire proceedings of Special Criminal Case No. 33 of 2021 with respect to the petitioner. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved