1 2025:CGHC:20183-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 907 of 2023 1 - Vaidehi Vilas Konher W/o Vilas Vijay Konher Aged About 63 Years R/o Sukhsagar Apartment, Dhanvantari Nagar, Police Station Rajendra Nagar, Indore (M.P.) 2 - Anurag Konher S/o Vilas Vijay Konher Aged About 36 Years R/o Sukhsagar Apartment, Dhanvantari Nagar, Police Station Rajendra Nagar, Indore (M.P.) ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station, Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Sadan Kumar Banerjee S/o Late K.N. Banerjee Aged About 70 Years Presently R/o Friends Residency Colony, House No. F-5/1, Nootan Chowk, Police Station Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 02 /0 5 /2025 1 Heard Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. 2 Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2 By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C), the petitioners seek quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No. 222/2021 registered at Police Station, Tarbahar, District Bilaspur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 34 of the IPC, the final report as well as the entire criminal proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bilaspur, in Criminal Case No. 2534/2022. 3 The facts, as projected by the petitioner are that on 30.10.2021 the respondent No. 2 lodged report at Police Station, Tarbahar, Bilaspur alleging therein that on 08.11.2012, the petitioners with the help of co- accused persons have got deposited an amount of Rs. 95 lakhs from the respondent No. 2-complainant Sadan Kumar Banerjee in the account of Fee Assets the Assistant Company namely Vaidehi Management and Services Private Limited for providing land and house at a low rate, but no such land or house has been provided to the complainant. The complainant/respondent No. 2 asked the accused persons for return of money, upon which, the accused persons have given 5 cheques bearing cheque No. 005076 of Rs. 25 lakhs, cheque No. 924434 of Rs. 25 lakhs, cheque No. 920404 of Rs. 11,87,500/-, cheque No. 000767 of Rs. 42,00,000/- and cheque No. 002243 of Rs. 22,23,500/- of ICICI Bank. The said cheques were issued by the accused person in the month of June, 2014 and the said cheques were deposited by the respondent No. 2 for withdrawal of amount, but the same were dishonoured, thereby the accused persons have committed cheating and fraud with the 3 respondent No. 2. On the basis of above report, the offence under Section 420, 34 of IPC have been registered against the petitioners and other co-accused persons in crime No. 222/2021 and upon completion of usual investigation, the charge sheet bearing final report No. 46/2022 was submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, where the criminal case No. 2534/2022 has been registered against the petitioners and other co-accused persons. 4 Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of dishonour of aforesaid cheques, the respondent No. 2 has already filed complaint cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 of IPC before the learned JMFC, Bilaspur bearing Complaint Case Nos. 850/2014, 1102/2014, 1143/2014, 1144/2014 & 148/2015 and the same are still pending consideration. Earlier the respondent No. 2 made complaint before the Police authorities for registration of offences against the petitioner and other co-accused persons and on the basis of said complaint, the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sarkanda, Bilaspur has recorded the statement of respondent No. 2 and started preliminary enquiry, but as no offence was made out against the petitioners, therefore the concerned Police Station, has not proceeded further. The complaint filed under Section 200, 202 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent No. 2 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur for registration of offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 452, 506-B/34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused persons including present petitioners. After considering the material produced by the respondent No. 2, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur has dismissed the complaint case by order dated 16.02.2016. Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.02.2016 the respondent No. 2 filed a revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. before 4 the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur bearing Criminal Revision No. 141/2016 and vide order dated 24.10.2017 the revisional Court has dismissed the revision on merits, by holding that the against invest amount, the respondent No. 2 has received cheques and the said cheques were dishonoured, therefore in such circumstances, the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 of IPC are not made out against the petitioners. 5 Mr. Tiwari submits that without disclosing the above facts and circumstances of the case, with an ulterior motive, after dismissing of complaint case and revision by the court, on 30.10.2021 the respondent No. 2 filed a written report at Police Station, Tarbahar, Bilaspur, upon which, the offences under Section 420, 34 of IPC has been registered against the accused persons including present petitioners. Even if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, then also the offence under Section 420/34 of IPC is not made out against the petitioners and the impugned prosecution of petitioners is abuse of process of law and it is futile exercise of powers. The dispute is civil in nature and the respondent No. 2 has made an attempt to give it a colour of criminal offence. 6 On the other hand, Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1, placing reliance on the return filed submits that upon the complaint of the respondent No.2 and on the basis of report, on preliminary enquiry cognizable offence is being made out against the present petitioners. The police is duty bound to register an FIR under section 154 of Cr.P.C. and investigate the matter if cognizable offence is disclose in complaint. After registration of the FIR the police recorded the statement of the complainant/respondent No.2/Sadan 5 Kumar Banerjee and other witnesses under section 161 of Cr.P.C. namely Smt. Prabha Banerjee, Rakesh Goyal, Bhanuprasad Sahu, Jagdish Singh Thakur, Deo Singh, Parth Kumar Bhattacharya, Arvind Kumar Yadav, Ashish Jain, Shivang Kumar Jain, ASI Shiv Kumar Chandra, ASI Malik Ram Jangde and Inspector Devesh Singh Rathore and the transactions in respect to the account of the complainant and petitioners/accused were also obtained and from bare perusal of the same cognizable offence prima facie is made out against the present. In the instant case the ingredient of sections 420, 34 of IPC is made out against the present petitioners and after due Investigation the police has filed charge sheet before the Court having competent jurisdiction i.e. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur vide Challan No. 46/2022 dated 24/05/2022. Looking to the material collected by the answering respondent the action taken by the police authorities on cogent evidence and material on record and on these circumstances clearly established the fact that the present petitioners are involved in the commission of the aforesaid offence and the concerned police authorities after considering all the aspect and in view of the circumstances of the case the police has registered and investigated the offence strictly in accordance with law and after due investigation the police has already filed the final report. The ground raised by the petitioners in the instant petition is the defence of the petitioners which they can raise at the time of trial. At this stage of proceeding it cannot be appropriate for this Hon'ble Court evaluate the evidence and the petitioners are at liberty to raise all these grounds at the time of framing of charge or Trial. Looking to the material collected by the answering respondent the action taken by the police authority on cogent evidence and material on record and on these circumstances clearly established the fact that the present applicant is involved in the 6 commission of the aforesaid offences and the concerned police authorities after considering all the aspect and in view of the circumstances of the case the police has registered and investigated the offence strictly in accordance with law at present the matter is pending consideration before the learned JMFC/Court having competent jurisdiction. That the ground raised by the petitioners in the instant case is the defence of the petitioners which they can raise at the time of Trial. No ground whatsoever is made out in this petition for quashing of the FIR, chargesheet or the criminal proceedings and this petition deserves to be dismissed. 7 Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioners/accused gave five cheques to respondent No.2/complainant i.e. cheque No.005076 of Rs.25 lacs, Cheque No.924434 of Rs.25 lacs, Cheque No.920404 of Rs. 11,87,500/-; Cheque No.000767 of Rs.42 lacs and Cheque No.002243 of Rs.22,23,500/- of ICICI Bank towards discharge of their debt liability and all these chequest got dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the drawer. This ultimately led to filing of three complaint cases against the petitioners/accused bearing Criminal Cases No. 1143/14, 1144/14 and 850/14 before JMFC, Bilaspur When respondent No.2/complainant filed complaint cases against the petitioners/accused and permanent arrest warrants were issued against them as they made all possible efforts to avoid services on summons on many occasions, they along with other co-accused entered into a compromise on 02.09.2023 for payment of the entire cheque amount to the complainant and gave 10 cheques of various amounts and different dates as detailed in paragraph No. 3 of the return and entered into a compromise on 02.09.2023. Based on the above compromise between the parties, the 7 learned trial Court by the order dated 2.9.2023 acquitted the accused persons of the charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, the NI Act). However, after being acquitted, the accused persons committed the same fraud and cheating with the complainant by blocking their account which resulted in dishonour of the cheques issued to him in terms of the compromise. Hence the respondent No 2/complainant again filed complaint cases against the petitioners/accused under Section 138 of NI Act which are still pending consideration. The conduct of the petitioners/accused has been very doubtful throughout and they have no regard to the sanctity of the order of court of law. They initially avoided service of notices as well as warrants issued to them in complaint cases and only after issuance of permanent arrest warrants they appeared before the trial Court and entered into compromise with the complainant only to secure acquittal and thereafter again committed the same fraud and cheating with him. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the conduct of the petitioners/accused right from the beginning when they entered into transaction with the complainant and at subsequent stages, it is crystal clear that their intention since inception was to cheat the complainant and cause him wrongful loss by illegal means which is the necessary ingredients for attracting the offence of cheating. As such, registration of offence under Section 420 of IPC against the petitioners/accused and the consequent criminal proceedings against the petitioners/accused are strictly in accordance with law. The petitioners/accused have not properly put forth the facts before this Hon'ble Court and as such, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 8 From perusal of the FIR, chargesheet and the materials available on record, it transpires that the petitioner has obtained a sum of Rs. 95 Lacs 8 from the respondent No. 2 in a fraudulent manner in the name of providing house/plots but neither any land/house was given to the respondent No. 2 nor the amount was refunded to the respondent No. 2 on being asked. On the other hand, when the respondent No. 2 filed cases under the NI Act, the petitioners entered into a compromise and gave various cheques for discharge of their liability but all the cheques got dishonoured, though as per the averments made by Mr. Tiwari, two cheques were honoured. Be that as it may, the said conduct of the petitioners goes to suggest that the petitioners are neither interested in returning back the money nor are interested in providing the respondent No. 2 the land/house as promised. On the one hand, the petitioners enter into compromise and then again get the cheques dishonoured which shows their malafide intention on their part. Even otherwise, the trial is pending consideration and at this stage, it would not be proper to interfere with the investigation. 9 The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge- sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if 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, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, which is not the case here. 10 In M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others {2021 SCC OnLine SC 315}, the Apex Court has observed 9 that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merits. 11 From perusal of the materials available on record, prima facie, it cannot be held that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners and as such, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and quash the FIR, charge sheet and the other consequential criminal proceedings and as such, this petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the interim order passed earlier also stands vacated. 12 Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned trial Court, forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.05.06 12:34:24 +0530