1 2025:CGHC:49764-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3042 of 2025 Sandeep Shankar S/o Shri Hari Shankar Saxena Aged About 54 Years R/o 24, Mahadev Nagar Extension, Sodala, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Pulgaon, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Tejram Gautam S/o Late Harkhram Gautam Aged About 62 Years Caste- Kurmi, R/o Village And Post Bhadesar, P.S. Pulgaon, Tahsil And Distt.- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 07.10. 2025 1. Heard Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.10.07 17:55:10 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “(i) To quash the proceedings of criminal case (SPL Case PDI Act) no. 01/2022 between State of CG Vs Mrigendra Singh Baghel & others pending before the Session/Special Judge, PDI Act Durg (C.G.) pursuant to order of cognizance taken dated 24.03.2022 in relation to Crime No. 483/2017 registered at Police Station Pulgaon Distt Durg (C.G.) as far as it relates to the petitioner i.e Sandeep Shankar. (ii) To quash the FIR bearing crime no. 483/2017 registered at Police Station Pulgaon Distt. Durg (C.G.) and charge sheet including supplementary charge sheet filed against the petitioner, by declaring the petitioner as absconder, for the offences punishable under section 420, 406 of IPC and 3,4,5, & 6 of the Prize Chit and money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act 1978 and section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protections of Depositors Interest Act 2005. (iii) To set-aside the order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court issuing permanent arrest warrant against the petitioner by 3 accepting the supplementary charge sheet against the petitioner under section 299 of the Cr.P.C. (iv) To grant any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that, the complainant, Tejram Gautam, lodged a written report alleging that Sai Prakash Properties Development Limited, having its corporate offices at Sansarchandra Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) and Jail Road, Bhopal (M.P.), was operating across Chhattisgarh (for short, ‘the Company’). It was further alleged that one Chamanlal Verma, acting as an agent of the Company, persuaded the complainant to purchase about seven policies in his and his wife’s name, promising returns three times the invested amount. On maturity, the complainant neither received any payment nor information regarding the Company. He alleged that the agent, in collusion with the Company’s Directors, cheated him and requested investigation. 4. Pursuant thereto, FIR was registered on 26.10.2017 against the Directors of Sai Prakash Properties Development Limited and Chaman Verma. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet on 24.03.2022 under Sections 420, 406 IPC, Sections 3–6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ 4 Interest Act, 2005, against the co-accused Mrigendra Singh Baghel, while the Company’s Directors were declared absconders. 5. The present petitioner was made accused solely based on information from ROC Gwalior, whereas Chaman Verma’s name was deleted from the charge sheet. The petitioner had only worked briefly as a Director, resigned from the post on 22.04.2010, had no involvement in the Company’s financial activities, and had no interaction with depositors. The petitioner had also returned his shares and filed Form 32 under the Companies Act, and SEBI proceedings against him were disposed of, confirming his non-involvement in money mobilization. 6. It is submitted that the petitioner’s inclusion in Crime No. 483/2017 registered at Pulgaon Police Station is unwarranted, illegal, and amounts to abuse of the process of law. It is further submitted that in an earlier complaint against the Company’s Directors, the learned court acquitted the accused on 30.09.2024, although the petitioner had been named as an accused. 7. Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the FIR has been lodged against the petitioner and six Directors of the Company in question, along with one Chamanlal, who was stated to be an agent of the Company. Subsequently, however, his name was deleted as he was one of the investors in 5 the Company. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner along with the six Directors on 23.03.2022. The first supplementary charge-sheet was subsequently filed on 28.09.2022 under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioner along with Smt. Pushpanjali Singh Baghel, Sahendra Singh Baghel, and Ranvijay Singh Baghel. It is further submitted that Pushpendra Singh Baghel, the Managing Director of the Company, along with his three brothers, namely Ranvijay Singh Baghel, Dhirendra Singh Baghel, and Mrigendra Singh Baghel have been arrested and are facing criminal prosecution, with charges having been framed against them. 8. It is contended that, insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, he moved an application for anticipatory bail before the trial court, which was rejected vide order dated 25.07.2025 on the ground that the anticipatory bail application was barred by Section 15 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005. On the merits, it is submitted that the petitioner was only a shareholder of the Company, holding 2,492 shares, and had no involvement in the Company’s financial transactions. 9. On being specifically queried about the capacity in which the petitioner had joined the Company, it was stated that he joined the Company in 2009 as Director and resigned on 22.04.2010, as reflected in Form 32, annexed as Annexure A/6 to the petition. 10. It is further submitted by Mr. Dembra that a complaint was filed 6 before the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’), which, in its order dated 27.11.2020, categorically found that the petitioner was not involved in the money mobilization activities of the Company. SEBI concluded that the allegations under Sections 11C(2) and 11C(3) of the SEBI Act were not established against the petitioner, and the notice issued to him was discharged. A copy of the SEBI order is annexed as Annexure A/7 to the petition. It is next submitted that a permanent arrest warrant has been issued against the petitioner on 14.07.2025 under Section 299 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner had moved an anticipatory bail application, which was rejected on 25.07.2025 on account of the bar under Section 15 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits at the Bar that the petitioner undertakes to surrender before the trial Court and to file an appropriate application raising all his objections and contentions in the matter. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioner may be granted protection to enable him to surrender before the trial Court and move such application. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, submits that the petitioner was one of the Directors of the Company and not a shareholder. The charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner along with six Directors under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. on 23.03.2022. Thereafter, the first 7 supplementary charge-sheet was filed under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioner along with co-accused Smt. Pushpanjali Singh Baghel, Sahendra Singh Baghel, and Ranvijay Singh Baghel. It is further submitted that a second supplementary charge-sheet was filed against Ranvijay Singh Baghel on 21.04.2025, and subsequently, a third supplementary charge- sheet was filed on 14.07.2025 under Section 299 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and other co-accused, namely Smt. Pushpanjali Singh Baghel and Sahendra Singh Baghel, who are absconding. 13. It is pointed out by the State counsel that four accused persons, Pushpendra Singh Baghel, Ranvijay Singh Baghel, Dhirendra Singh Baghel, and Mrigendra Singh Baghel who are Directors of the Company and real brothers, have been arrested, are in jail and are facing trial. Charges have been framed against them, and evidence of five prosecution witnesses has already been recorded. 14. It is further submitted by the learned State counsel that the petitioner, along with co-accused Smt. Pushpanjali Singh Baghel and Sahendra Singh Baghel, continues to be absconding, and a permanent arrest warrant has been issued against them on 14.07.2025 under Section 299 of the Cr.P.C. It is lastly contended that as the petitioner remains absconding, no indulgence should be granted to him, and his absence has contributed to the delay in 8 trial, which relates to a case originating in 2017. 15. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 16. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident from the record that on 14.07.2025, the trial Court had issued a permanent warrant under Section 299 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and two other co-accused, namely Smt. Pushpanjali Singh Baghel and Sahendra Singh Baghel, who are also Directors of the Company, being respectively the wife and real brother of the Managing Director, Pushpendra Singh Baghel. The petitioner thereafter approached the trial Court by filing an application for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed on 25.07.2025 on the ground that the application was barred under Section 15 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005. Subsequently, the petitioner approached this Court seeking quashing of the permanent warrant along with the related proceedings. 17. The petitioner’s counsel has contended that the petitioner was never involved in the money mobilization activities of the Company, as confirmed by the SEBI order dated 27.11.2020, and has expressed his readiness and willingness to approach the trial Court to raise all his objections and contentions. Considering that the permanent warrant has already been issued against the petitioner and that he is a Director of the Company, the Court 9 finds it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to grant interim protection to the petitioner to enable him to approach the trial Court without fear of arrest and to participate in the proceedings in a lawful manner. 18. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court on 28.10.2025 and file an appropriate application raising all his objections and contentions with regard to the case. Till then, the permanent warrant issued against the petitioner vide order dated 14.07.2025 by the trial Court shall kept in abeyance, failing which the trial Court is at liberty to proceed with the trial in accordance with law. 19. With the above observations and directions, the instant petition stands disposed of. 20. It is made explicitly clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and all contentions and defenses of the petitioner shall be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu