1 2025:CGHC:57931 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3627 of 2025 Shanti Bai W/o Shivprasad Sidar Aged About 41 Years R/o Pathalgaon, P.S- Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocatee For Respondent(s) : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 28/11/2025 1. With the consent of the parties the present petition is heard finally at motion stage. 2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of 2 BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 16.09.2025 whereby the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge- Pathalgaon, Disrict- Jashpur, rejecting the prayer against framing of charge in revisional jurisdiction, vide order dated 16.09.2025 in Criminal Revision No. 03/2025. 3. Brief facts of the case leading to the disposal of this petition are that vide a written complaint dated 28.08.2018 was made by the Revenue Inspector Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur before the Police Station Pathalgaon, regarding misappropriation of compensation money, granted to Ramanuj say, Rohini and Anup for acquisition of their land for N.H. bypass road, by the Sheetal Gupta (Ward- Parshad), Amit Gupta (IDBI Bank Manager) and one Mohini Bai @ Santoshi their own Bua (Aunt). Based upon the complaint dated 28.08.2018, the FIR has been registered at P.S. Pathalgaon bearing Crime No. 262/2018 against and one Mohini Bai @ Santoshi. After registration of FIR, the matter was taken into investigation and the police has recorded the statement on oath, and in further investigation the police seized so many documents from the complainant and the bank. Earlier also the petitioner had preferred a revision petition before the Hon’ble Court which was registered as CRR No. 625/2025 which was withdrawn with liberty to file revision before the learned Sessions Judge. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that there are three components that constitute the offence of Section 420, i.e. 1) the deception of any 3 person, 2) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person, and 3) Mens rea or dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement but all these ingredients are missing in the case, even the charges have been framed, which only deserves the treatment of quashing of charge dated 17.03.2025. He would also contend that the learned trial court ought not to have appreciated any of the key principles or ingredients of Section 420 of IPC thus the charges dated 17.03.2025 deserves to be quashed. 5. Learned State Counsel opposes the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner. 6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Perusal of record shows that as charge sheet prima facie shows that compensation of Rs. 6,76,000/- have been received by the Revisional Court along with other co-accused by cheating and on the basis of forged documents. Revisional Court has specifically mentioned in para 5 of the order dated 16.09.2025 which is mentioned as under: "अभियोजन के अनुसार राजस्व निनरीक्षक घसिसया राम रानिया के द्वारा लिलित भिकायत प्रस्तुत निकये जाने पर पुलिस थाना पत्थगाँव में इस आय की प्रथम सूचना पत्र नि+नाँक 09/10/2018 +ज, की गयी निक अभियुक्तगण ांतित बाई (पुनरीक्षकता,), मोहनी सिंसह, श्यामनारायण गुप्ता एवं अनिमत गुप्ता, ाा प्रबंधक, आई.डी.बी.आई. बैंक पत्थगाँव 4 के द्वारा आपरातिधक षडयंत्र कर राष्ट्रीय राजमाग, की अतिधगृनिहत ूनिम के संबंध में जारी क्षतितपूर्तित राभि में से संतोषी बाई के निहस्से की राभि 6,76,000/- रूपये को उसके स्थान पर अन्य मनिहा को उपस्थिस्थत कराकर छपूव,क प्राप्त कर लिया गया है। उक्त तथ्यों के आधार पर उक्त अभियुक्तगण के निवरूद्ध आ+े नि+नाँक 17/03/2025 पारिरत निकया जाकर उसी नि+नाँक को संनिहता की धारा 120 बी, 419, 420, 467 एवं 468 का आरोप निवरतिचत निकया गया है।" 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the counsels, it is crystal clear from the records that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner along with other co- accused. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima