1 2025:CGHC:56809 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1830 of 2025 Dinesh Mundliyar S/o G.K. Mundliyar Aged About 37 Years R/o Near Railway Pump House Torwa, Bilaspur, P.S. - Torwa, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Torwa District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulabani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.11.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 465/2025 registered at Police Station – Torwa District - Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution story and allegation made against the applicant is that, the complainant in the instant case provided financial assistance VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.11.21 17:00:24 +0530 2 to the accused from time to time for the progress of contractual work undertaken by the accused. In order to ensure the repayment of the amount the accused issued a cheque in favour of the complainant but on presentation of the cheque for encashment it was dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. Consequently, the complainant filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The said case was registered as Case no 331/2022 before the JMFC Bilaspur, and is currently pending for the complainant's evidence. Listed for 22.11.2025. But the instant case is of civil nature as the case is only in regard to non-payment of the amount taken by the applicant and accordingly the ingredients of section 415 of IPC are not attracted in this instant case as section 415 mandates dishonest or fraudulent intention which is absent on this. Hence this bail application. 3. The applicant respectfully submits that he has been falsely implicated in the present case, as no incriminating material exists to establish any offence under Section 420 IPC. The alleged transactions are stated to have occurred between 2015 and 2022, whereas the present complaint has been lodged only in 2025, and the complainant has failed to provide any cogent explanation for this inordinate delay, rendering the complaint doubtful, mala fide, and an afterthought. For an offence under Section 415 IPC, there must be fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction, which is completely absent here, as the dispute, if any, arises only from alleged non-payment. The complainant had been voluntarily advancing money to the applicant for several years, which shows that all dealings were made with full knowledge and consent, without any deception. Even 3 otherwise, the matter is purely civil in nature since the applicant has already repaid Rs. 23,41,500/- out of Rs. 27,00,000/-, as shown in Annexure A-3, and mere non-repayment does not constitute the offence of cheating. The complainant has already filed a case under Section 138 of the NI Act on the same cause of action, and initiating parallel proceedings under Section 420 IPC amounts to abuse of process of law. It is settled law that once cognizance has been taken by a competent Court on the same set of facts, no fresh FIR can be registered without the Magistrate’s permission. The applicant had also made prior written complaints against the complainant regarding coercion and non-payment of Rs. 10,00,000/-, but no action was taken due to the complainant’s influence, as reflected in the complaints dated 17.03.2022, 24.03.2025, and 08.08.2025. The alleged documents, taken on plain paper without stamp duty, were obtained under pressure by multiple persons at the complainant’s instance, further showing the malicious nature of the case. Even if the allegations are accepted, the dispute remains civil and not criminal, and the present FIR has been filed only to pressurize the applicant. The applicant is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the anticipatory bail application of the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and nature of dispute and materials 4 available on record, without further commenting anything on merits, this Court find it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Dinesh Mundliyar, on executing a personal bond and one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) the applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav