1 2025:CGHC:61443-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 627 of 2025 Munindra Likhare S/o Lalchand Likhare Aged About 43 Years R/o 116, Rajendra Prasad Ward No. 12, Civil Line Bus Stop, Chhindwara Lodhikheda, Chhindwara, M.P. ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Ambikapur (Dehat), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rudra Pratap Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rudra Pratap Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent / State. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.12.17 17:14:19 +0530 2 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “(i) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR No. 140/2015, dated 20.06.2015, 2015 registered at Ambikapur (Dehat) Police Station, District Surguja, for offences under Sections 420 and 34 IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, along with the subsequent investigation and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioner, being illegal and without jurisdiction. (ii) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just, and proper in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR bearing Crime No. 140/2015 registered at Police Station- Ambikapur (Dehat), District- Surguja (C.G.) for the alleged offences under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, which was lodged on the complaint of the District Treasury Officer alleging collection of public deposits by BN Gold Real Estate and Allied Ltd. under unauthorized schemes, however, the petitioner is neither named in the said FIR nor in the subsequent FIRs bearing Crime No. 42/2016 and Crime No. 127/2019, and was never summoned or investigated till 2024, coming to know of the proceedings only later, upon which he sought anticipatory bail and 3 thereafter approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 7620/2024 where ad-interim protection was granted. It later transpired that the investigation was conducted by the police without jurisdiction and in contravention of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interests Act, 2005, under which only the Competent Authority is empowered to initiate proceedings, and since the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while hearing the SLP on 17.12.2024, left the substantial issue of jurisdiction open for consideration despite examination of most prosecution witnesses, the present petition has been preferred as the FIR and entire investigation are without authority of law and amount to abuse of process. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s name does not figure in any of the FIRs registered in the years 2015, 2016 or 2019 relating to BN Gold Real Estate and Allied Ltd., yet the police, without any legal basis or independent material, have sought to implicate him solely on the basis of statements of third parties. The investigation has been conducted in a mechanical and arbitrary manner without any evidence to show the petitioner’s role in the management or affairs of the said company. Further, under the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interests Act, 2005, only the Competent Authority, namely the District Magistrate, is empowered to initiate proceedings and the police have no jurisdiction to register an FIR or file a charge sheet without such authorization, rendering the entire investigation void ab initio. The petitioner has already been granted ad-interim protection by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 10619/2025 and bail by 4 this Hon’ble High Court in M.Cr.C(A) No. 1422/2025, and therefore continuation of investigation and threat of arrest amounts to abuse of process of law. Even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at face value, no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner in terms of the law laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. Further, in SLP (Crl.) No. 7620/2024, heard on 17.12.2024, though most of the prosecution witnesses had been examined, the substantial issue was left open for consideration and that despite the petitioner neither being named in the FIR nor declared absconding in the charge-sheet, the police are still exerting pressure upon him after grant of ad-interim protection, which further demonstrates arbitrariness and illegality in the proceedings. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that in compliance of the order dated 11.12.2025 passed by this Court, he sought instructions from the concerned authority as to whether the name of the petitioner appears in the charge-sheet pertaining to Crime No. 140/2015, on the basis of the instructions so received, learned State counsel submits that the name of the petitioner does not find mention either in the FIR or in the charge-sheet, including the supplementary charge-sheet filed thereafter. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. The relief as sought for the petitioner in this petition seeking quashing of the FIR cannot be granted in this petition. However, in view of the instructions placed on record by learned State counsel to the 5 effect that the petitioner’s name is neither mentioned in the FIR relating to Crime No. 140/2015, in the charge-sheet nor in the supplementary charge-sheet, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Superintendent of Police concerned to ensure that the petitioner is not subjected to any harassment by the police personnel in the present case unless and until final report, if any, is filed against him, strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet