1 2025:CGHC:55290-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2111 of 2024 1 - Smt. Ram Pyari Agrawal W/o Late Jaiprakash Agrawal Aged About 80 Years Resident Of Palace Road, Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Shiv Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Jaiprakash Agrawal Aged About 55 Years Resident Of D.M. Vatika, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Naval Kishore Agrawal S/o Late Jaiprakash Agrawal Aged About 50 Years Resident Of Palace Road, Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Station House Officer Police Station Amanaka, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Rajkumar Thawrani S/o Late Santram Das Thawrani Aged About 49 Years Resident Of Bahatarai Chowk, Near Pratham Hospital, Tirupati Nagar, P.S. Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raja Ali, Advocate For State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. GA For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Amit Kumar Chaki, Advocate RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.11.14 10:28:37 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J 13/11/2025 1. The instant CRMP under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred for the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. and in exercise thereof admit the petition, call for the records and after hearing the parties in the matter set-aside/quash the FIR bearing Crime No. 404/2023 registered at police Station Amanaka, Raipur dated 14/10/2023 and charge-sheet filed before the J.M.F.C. Raipur (C.G.) and in consequences quash the entire criminal case i.e. Criminal Case No. 13533/24 between State Vs. Naval Kishore Agrawal & Ors., pending before the JMFC, Raipur (C.G.) being abuse of process of Court and process of law and also in violation of petitioner’s fundamental rights and in peculiar factual matrix of case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts projected in the petition are that, on 20.10.2014, the petitioners and the complainant entered into an agreement for sale in respect of land owned and possessed by the petitioners bearing Khasra Nos. 327/3, 326/9 and 326/10 admeasuring 0.279 hectare, 0.052 hectare and 0.089 hectare respectively, total area 0.420 hectare, situated at Village Tatibandh, P.H. No. 34, R.I. Circle Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.). The total sale consideration was fixed at the rate of Rs.960/- per square foot, amounting to Rs.4,33,84,320/-. It is 3 stated that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- in cash and Rs.6,00,000/- by cheque bearing No.272584, totaling Rs.51,00,000/- as earnest money. As per the agreement, the complainant was required to pay a further sum of Rs.50,00,000/- on 20.12.2014 and the balance amount at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed on 20.02.2015, upon which the petitioners were to demarcate the land and provide necessary documents for registration. It is further stated that the complainant issued three cheques dated 06.01.2015 (though bearing date 20.12.2014) for Rs.20,00,000/-, Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/- respectively, towards the installment of Rs.50,00,000/-. It is submitted that subsequently the complainant took back the earlier cheque of Rs.6,00,000/- and paid the said amount in cash on 30.10.2014. Thereafter, whenever the petitioners attempted to encash the said cheques, the complainant requested them not to present the same and sought time to arrange funds. On 22.01.2015, the complainant paid Rs.10,00,000/- in cash as part payment against one of the cheques but again failed to honor the remaining amount. When the petitioners presented all three cheques for encashment, they were dishonoured and returned unpaid with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. The petitioners thereafter issued a legal notice dated 01.04.2015 calling upon the complainant to make payment within seven days, failing which the earnest amount would stand forfeited. In reply dated 13.04.2015, the complainant did not deny the dishonour of cheques but alleged that the petitioners had failed to demarcate the land and provide requisite documents. It is further averred that after a long lapse of time, on 14.10.2023, the petitioners came to know that the complainant had lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Raipur on 04.10.2023, on the basis of which an FIR 4 came to be registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The petitioners assert that the allegations made are false and baseless, and that the dispute is purely civil in nature arising out of a contractual transaction, which has been maliciously given a criminal colour. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR in question has been lodged maliciously with an ulterior motive to convert a purely civil dispute into a criminal proceeding. It is contended that the agreement for sale dated 20.10.2014 clearly demonstrates a commercial transaction between the parties, wherein the complainant failed to perform his part of the contract by not making the requisite payments within the stipulated period, resulting in dishonour of cheques issued by him. It is argued that the petitioners have neither deceived nor induced the complainant to part with any money; rather, it was the complainant who defaulted in payment despite several opportunities. The issuance of legal notice dated 01.04.2015 and the complainant’s reply thereto further establish that the dispute pertains to non-fulfilment of contractual obligations and not to any criminal act of cheating. It is further contended that the essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC are completely absent, as there was no dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. Hence, registration of FIR after an inordinate delay of nearly eight years is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, and therefore the proceedings deserve to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as respondent No.3/complainant oppose the petition and submit that despite receiving 5 substantial advance, the petitioners failed to execute the sale deed or hand over possession as agreed, indicating dishonest intention from the very inception. It is urged that retention of the complainant’s money amounts to cheating, and that the existence of an agreement does not preclude criminal action where fraudulent intent is evident. Hence, the FIR prima facie discloses the offence alleged and warrants no interference. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. As per the averments made in the petition, the transaction in question arises out of an agreement for sale executed on 20.10.2014, and the dispute essentially relates to non-performance of reciprocal obligations under the said contract. It is the case of the petitioners that the complainant failed to make payments as per the agreed schedule, the cheques issued by him towards part consideration were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, and despite notice, he did not fulfil his part of the agreement. 7. The FIR, however, came to be registered only in October 2023, nearly eight years after the transaction, without any explanation for such delay. The long and unexplained delay in setting the criminal law into motion prima facie indicates that the complaint has been filed with mala fide intention to exert pressure in a civil dispute. 8. Even if the allegations made in the FIR are taken at their face value, they do not disclose the essential ingredients of cheating under Section 420 IPC, as there is no material to indicate dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners 6 at the inception of the transaction. The entire dispute arises out of a contractual arrangement between the parties, for which appropriate civil remedies were available to the complainant. 9. It is well settled that criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to be used as an instrument to settle civil disputes or to recover money arising out of a failed commercial transaction. In view of the nature of allegations, the unexplained delay, and the absence of any fraudulent intent, continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The FIR bearing Crime No. 404/2023, registered at Police Station Amanaka, Raipur, and the consequential charge-sheet and proceedings in Criminal Case No. 13533/2024, pending before the JMFC, Raipur (C.G.), are hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Jyoti