1 2025:CGHC:17764 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3374 of 2024 1 - Smt. Varsha Parakh W/o Shri Kushal Parakh Aged About 44 Years R/o Manglam, Main Road, Jagdalpur, Police Station Jagdalpur, Distt. - Bastar Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Nisha Kothari W/o Deepak Kothari Aged About 42 Years R/o C-32, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, P.S. Kotwali Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Deepak Kothari S/o Late Balchand Kothari Aged About 50 Years R/o C-32, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ankit Jain S/o Late Harakchand Jain Aged About 35 Years R/o Chahal Pahal, Main Road, Khariyar Road Jonk, Khariyar Road, Police Station - Khariyar Road Jonk, District Nuapada Odisha ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Golbazar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Superintendent Of Police Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Amit Jeevan S/o Late Shri Lakhiram Jeevan Aged About 55 Years R/o M7, Rajeev Nagar, Lodhipara Chowk, Near Crystal Tower, P.S. Khamhardih Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Sahu, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.3. : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 17/04/2025 1. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS”) for quashing of the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 15409/2024 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. The petitioners prayed for the following relief in the petition:- “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and may further be pleased to quash the Criminal Proceeding in Cr. Case No. 15409/2024 (Annexure P-2) against the petitioners, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the accused persons in the Criminal Case No. 15409/2024 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, for the offences under Section 420, 120-B, 384 and 506 of the IPC. The said criminal case is arising out of the Crime No. 310/2022 registered at police station Gole Bazar, Raipur, on 02-12-2022. The complainant Amit Jeevan has lodged a written complaint to the police with the allegation that he entered into an agreement to purchase the land of the petitioners bearing Kh. No. 273/18, area 0.038 Hect., situated at Kasaridih, Tahsil and district Durg, for the total consideration of Rs. 80,00,000/- and agreement was executed on 18-05-2018. He already paid a total of Rs. 84,00,000/- in various instalments, but the sale deed of the subject land could not be executed in his favour. Thereafter, he made a complaint to the police, in which they assured him that they would execute 3 the sale deed in his favour very soon, and the excess amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- would also be returned to him. After the execution of the deed of compromise, the brother-in-law of the accused, Varsha Parakh, namely Deepak Kothari, called him to the office of their advocate, Bhupendra Jain and assured him that they would return the entire cash amount to him and would obtain the entire sale consideration through the bank transaction. On their assurance, he has given the cheque in lieu of the sale consideration and has got the sale deed registered in his favour. After about 2-3 days of registration of sale deed in his favour, the accused persons Nisha Kothari and Deepak Kothari came to his office and returned him the original deed of compromise, three cheques of Rs. 3,00,000/- each which are mentioned in the sale deed and requested him that they would return Rs. 11,00,000/- cash which are outstanding against them and also for adjustment of Rs. 9,00,000/- which is the amount of cheques. It is also alleged that he has paid total Rs. 91,00,000/- to the accused persons/seller of the land, and after adjustment of the transaction amount, he has to receive Rs. 11,00,000/- back from the accused persons. The accused Varsha Parakh has admitted in her affidavit that she has received the entire amount of consideration, despite that a legal notice was served upon him. Presently, all the accused persons are putting him in fear that they have not received the amount of the cheque and are trying to extort money from him. On 09-02-2022, the accused Ankit Jain threatened him that they would get the registry deed null and void and demanded Rs. 20,00,000/- from him. From the conduct of the accused persons, he is apprehending any untoward incident and therefore, appropriate action may be taken against them. The police have registered the offence against the accused persons/petitioners for the offence under Sections 420, 120-B, 384 and 506 of the IPC. After due investigation, charge sheet has been filed on 16-09-2024 before the learned Judicial Magistrate 4 First Class, Raipur, and a Criminal Case No. 15409/2024 is registered there, in which the accused persons are facing trial of the case. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the transaction between the parties is purely civil in nature, which is given the colour of criminality. It would not be possible that the purchaser would pay the excess amount to the seller before the registration of the sale deed, that too in instalments, and thereafter again give the cheques. The mode of the alleged transaction itself is doubtful. The petitioner No. 1 has served a legal notice to the complainant with respect to non-receipt of the total amount of three cheques amounting to Rs. 9,00,000/-. From the entire transaction, no offence of cheating, conspiracy or extortion is prima facie made out. He would further submit that the entire sale consideration has not been paid to the seller, and to avoid its payment, the complainant has lodged the report, which is mala fide and afterthought. He would further submit that on 09-09- 2024, the petitioner No. 1, Varsha Parakh, has filed a Civil suit for recovery of the amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- before the learned Additional District Judge, Durg, which is pending for consideration. The entire process of registration of the offence and charge sheet is a gross abuse of the process of the law as well as the process of the court, and the entire proceeding 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 would submit that on the complaint received from the complainant Amit Jeevan, the police have conducted the preliminary inquiry and after considering the commission of the offence, they have registered the offence and after due investigation, charge sheet has been filed in which the Criminal Case No. 15409/2024 is pending before the learned trial court. There is sufficient material and evidence available in the charge sheet that prima facie discloses the commission of the alleged offence. The manner in which the amount was 5 received by the petitioners and the account details of the parties collected during the investigation clearly reveal that there is a transaction of Rs. One Crore in the bank account of the petitioners, out of which the three cheques total amounting to Rs. 09 Lakhs, have not been produced in the bank for its clearance and thus, the total Rs. 91 Lakhs have been paid to the petitioners, but the value of the property put in the sale deed is Rs. 80 Lakhs. The threat letter and legal notice have also been seized in the case. There is sufficient documentary as well as oral evidence available in the case to proceed with the trial, and therefore, the petition does not have any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 would also oppose the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and would submit that the entire amount of consideration has already been paid to the petitioners, rather excess amount has been paid to them for which they assured the complainant in writing that they would return the excess amount. Instead of the return of the excess amount, they have threatened him to pay an additional amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs or else, they would get the sale deed cancelled. After a preliminary inquiry, the police have registered the offence and filed the charge sheet against the petitioners. There are disputed questions of fact involved in the case, and the entire proceeding cannot be quashed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. While considering the case for quashing of the entire proceeding of the criminal case, the prima facie evidence is to be considered as to whether, from the material produced along with the charge sheet, a prima facie offence is disclosed or not. The inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 528 of the BNSS is very limited, while considering the prima facie case against the accused persons. In the matter of “Kailash Chandra 6 Agrawal and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others”, 2014 (16) SCC 551, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 9 that:- "9. The parameters for quashing proceedings in a criminal complaint are well known. If there are triable issues, the Court is not expected to go into the veracity of the rival versions but where on the face of it, the criminal proceedings are abuse of the court's process, quashing jurisdiction can be exercised. Reference may be made to K. Ramakrishna v. State of Bihar Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrates, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and s Asmathunnisa v. State of A.P.7." 8. In the matter of “Vijayander Kumar and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Another”, 2014(3) SCC 389, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 12 that:- "12. The learned counsel for the respondents is correct in contending that a given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may also be available to the informant/complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not. This proposition is supported by several judgments of this a Court as noted in para 16 of the judgment in Ravindra Kumar Madhanlal Goenka v. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners (P) Ltd." 9. In another case of “R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and Others”, 2009 (1) SCC 516, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 15 that:- "8. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal' it was held: (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102) 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law 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 a should be exercised: (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. 7 (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other b 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 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 complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not c disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) * * * (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 d for proceeding against the accused. (6) * * * (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." 9. In Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi this Court held: (SCC pp. 262-63, paras 7 & 12) "7. After quoting Section 415 IPC, learned Judges proceeded to consider the main elements of the offence in the following lines: 'A bare reading of the definition of cheating would suggest that there are two elements thereof, namely, deception and dishonest intention to do or omit to do something. In order to bring a case within the first part of Section 415, it is essential, in the first place that the person who delivers the property should have been deceived before he makes the delivery; and in the second place that he should have been induced to do so fraudulently or dishonestly. Where property is fraudulently or dishonestly obtained, Section 415 would bring the said act within the ambit of cheating provided the property is to be obtained by deception.' 12. The High Court seems to have adopted a strictly hypertechnical approach and sieved the complaint through a colander of finest gauzes for testing the ingredients under Section 415 IPC. Such an endeavour may be justified during trial, but certainly not during the stage of investigation. At any rate, it is too premature a stage for the High Court to step in and stall the investigation by declaring that it is a commercial transaction simpliciter wherein no semblance of criminal offence is involved." 11. In Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain it is stated: (SCC p. 716, para 39) "39. In exercising its jurisdiction under Section 561-A the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate, and ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction and contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the accusation made against the accused would not be sustained."" (emphasis in original) 12. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo this Court stated the law f thus: (SCC pp. 549-51, paras 11 & 14) 8 "11. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard- and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its a extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. * * * 14. It is to be noted that the investigation was not complete and at that stage it was impermissible for the High Court to look into materials, the acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, it is not permissible for b the Court to act as if it was a trial court. Even when charge is framed at that stage, the Court has to only prima facie be satisfied about the existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. For that limited purpose, the Court can evaluate material and documents on records but it cannot appreciate evidence. The Court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are c sufficient or not for convicting the accused. In Chand Dhawan v. Jawahar Lal, it was observed that when the materials relied upon by a party are required to be proved, no inference can be drawn on the basis of those materials to conclude the complaint to be unacceptable. The Court should not act on annexures to the petitions under Section 482 CrPC, which cannot be termed as evidence without being tested and proved." 14. However, Monica Kumar (Dr.) v. State of U.P.9 held: (SCC p. 798, para 36) "36. ... The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard- and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage." 15. Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are: (1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence. (2) For the said purpose the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence. (3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall not 9 go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus. (4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue." 10. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the FIR lodged by the complainant reveals that there are allegations that the complainant has paid Rs. 84,00,000/- to the petitioners in various instalments towards the sale consideration of land i.e. Rs. 80,00,000/- and despite that the sale deed could not be executed for about three years, thereafter, when the complainant lodged police report, the petitioners approached to the complainant and get the matter compromised after giving assurance of refund of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The petitioners again deceived the complainant that they would return the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- and would show the payment of the entire sale consideration through the bank transaction, and again get the amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- transferred into their account through RTGS on 26-08-2021 and obtained three cheques of Rs. Three Lakhs each on 06-09-2021. The sale deed was registered on 08-09-2021, showing the sale consideration of Rs. 80,00,000/-. After the registration of the sale deed, the petitioner No. 2 again approached the complainant and assured that they would refund him the amount of Rs. 11,00,000/-, which was the excess amount of consideration paid by the complainant to the petitioners, but the same has not been returned. Subsequently, the petitioners are creating pressure upon the complainant to pay Rs. 9,00,000/- more and a legal notice is served upon him demanding the said amount, and noticed that if the complainant fails to pay the same, the sale deed would be cancelled by them. Thus, the petitioners are extorting Rs. 20,00,000/- from the complainant (excess payment of Rs. 11,00,000/- and demand of Rs. 9,00,000/- more). The petitioners are also giving threats to the complainant with dire consequences. On 09-02-2022, the petitioner No. 4 also threatened him and demanded Rs. 20 Lakhs more or else they would cancel the registry 10 of the land. From the entire transaction, it prima facie reflects the mens rea to commit the offence of cheating and to extort money from the complainant and is sufficient to register the FIR and to proceed with the trial of the case. There is sufficient material collected during the investigation against the petitioners. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it also appears that there are various questions of fact involved in the case, which can be determined only after recording evidence of the parties. From the bank account details, documents seized during the investigation and the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, at this stage, it cannot be said that there is no material against the petitioners to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings of the criminal case. 11. It is well established that the inherent jurisdiction can be exercised to quash the proceeding in a case either to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. There may be cases where it may be possible to take the view that the institution or continuance of the criminal against the accused may amount to abuse of process of the court or that the quashing of the proceedings of the case would secure the ends of justice. Cases may arise where the allegations in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciation of evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the FIR or complaint to decide whether the alleged offence is disclosed or not. In dealing with cases of like nature, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which, on its appreciation, may or may not support the accusation. While exercising the jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, the court would not embark upon the inquiry as to whether the evidence is 11 reliable or not. The quashing of the criminal proceeding in exercise of inherent jurisdiction should be limited to very extreme exceptions. 12. In the present case, there is prima facie sufficient material in the charge sheet for an accusation against the petitioners and to proceed with the case. This court is not impressed with the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and is of the opinion that the proceedings of the criminal case against the petitioners cannot be quashed under the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the material available in the charge sheet. 13. In the result, the present criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.06.03 11:18:13 +0530