1 2025:CGHC:52029 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 953 of 2023 1 - Vinod Saluja S/o Late Malikram Saluja Aged About 53 Years R/o Jawaharnagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Aditya Saluja S/o Late Deepak Saluja Aged About 34 Years R/o 251, Jawahar Nagar, Near L.G. Showroom, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S.- Azad Chowk, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Pinky Saluja W/o Lt. Pramod Saluja R/o House No. 290, Samta Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 17/10/2025 1. The present criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Charge Sheet No. 206 of 2022, which is arising out of the offence of Crime No. 31 of 2020, registered at police station Azad Chowk, Raipur for the offence under VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.10.27 19:00:01 +0530 2 Sections 420, 419 and 34 of IPC pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners are the accused persons in the offence of Crime No. 31 of 2020, registered at police station Azad Chowk, Raipur for the offence under Sections 420, 419, 34 of IPC. The said offence has been registered on the complaint made by the complainant/respondent No.2- Pinky Saluja with the allegation that the accused persons are her brother-in-law and nephew and they are running money lending business in her and her husband’s name since last 20 years and they obtained a forged loan in her husband’s name from HDFC bank by putting forged signature of her husband. On 01.01.2017, her husband suffered with heart attack and thereafter, the accused persons started giving them Rs. 30,000/- per month for their domestic needs. She is having bank account No. 55610010011080 in her name and bank account No. 55610010010541 in the name of her husband. After death of her husband, the accused persons by putting forged signature of her and her husband shown themselves to be a mandate holder and operating their bank accounts. The accused persons have obtained a loan of Rs. 6 lakhs from HDFC bank, Shankar Nagar branch by pledging their property of Rishabh Nagar. All these matters have been reported to the police in the year 2018 also, but no action has been taken against the accused persons. The accused persons have pressurized them to handover the keys of their shop and without there being any intimation or information, they are operating the bank accounts and made various transactions in it. They also 3 harassed them by abusing and putting them in fear with dire consequences. On the complaint made by the complainant, the FIR was lodged, statement of witnesses have been recorded and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned trial Court against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 420, 419, 34 of the IPC on 01.10.2022. Learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the matter and the proceeding before the learned trial Court is pending. The petitioners have challenged the entire proceedings pending before the learned trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, the false report has been lodged by the complainant only on the apprehension that the petitioners are running their bank accounts by putting their forged signature. There is no material available in the charge sheet, which prima facie proves that the signatures over the relevant documents are forged. The complainant/respondent No.2 is the sister-in-law and aunt of the petitioners and only to get the partition on the family property and to create pressure upon them, she lodged the report. The prosecution has failed to demonstrate any criminal conduct of the accused persons. The loan amount has been procured after due authorization of the complainant and her deceased husband before the bank authorities. From the complaint itself, it has been shown that the petitioners have withdrawn the amount in the capacity of mandate holder. The complainant nowhere stated as to from where she procured the amount in the bank account, even after death of her husband. The petitioners are running their family business and shown their kindness to maintain the family 4 of their deceased brother i.e. the husband of the complainant by providing them the amount of Rs. 30,000/- per month. He would further submit that the bank accounts of the complainant and her husband were used and utilized by the brother-in-law of the complainant late Deepak Saluja in the capacity of mandate holder and after death of Deepak Saluja, the petitioner No.2 has been appointed as a mandate holder and the accounts were used for the purposes of family business. The complainant and her family started residing separately due to family dispute and she demanding a huge amount for their livelihood from the petitioners, who are running their family business and when they shown their inability to pay such a huge amount to them, she lodged a report against them. The material produced along with the charge sheet does disclose prima facie evidence to proceed with the trial of the case. It is only a family dispute with respect to share of the family business and claim of partition, which are of purely civil in nature, which has been given the colour of criminality by the complainant, therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law as well as the process of the Court and the entire proceedings of the criminal case is liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and has submitted that, when the complaint and the material available in the charge sheet discloses a prima facie offence, the proceeding of the criminal case cannot be quashed while exercising the powers under Section 482 of the CRPC. The allegation leveled in the present case 5 by the complainant prima facie demonstrate the offence against the accused persons, which requires to be examined during the evidence. At the time of filing of charge sheet, it cannot be said that the allegations leveled in the present case against the petitioners are false or no offence prima facie discloses from the material annexed with the charge sheet. She would further submit that the complaint and the statement of the complainant Pinky Saluja and the documents annexed with the charge sheet are sufficient to prosecute the petitioners/accused persons for the offence under Sections 420 and 419 of the IPC. There may be some family dispute with respect to their family business, but all that has to be decided by the learned trial Court after a full-fledged trial. The allegation against the accused persons that they are running the bank account of the complainant and her husband without there being any knowledge and by putting their forged signatures are required to be examined by the learned trial Court. So far as the filing of charge sheet is concerned, there is sufficient material available in the charge sheet, and the charge sheet cannot be quashed at this stage, therefore, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. The petitioners are prosecuting by the complainant for the offence of cheating and cheating by personation. It is alleged in the written complaint made by the complainant on 10.01.2019 that, the accused persons are her brother-in-law and nephew and they are running the 6 bank accounts in her and her late husband’s name by putting their forged signature behind their back and they are not having any knowledge of transaction. It is also alleged that a loan of Rs. 6 lakhs were also obtained by the petitioner Vinod Saluja in the name of the complainant from HDFC bank, Shankar Nagar branch and pledged their property documents. It is also alleged that the accused persons have shown themselves as mandate holder of the bank accounts, which are running in her and her husband’s name and their accounts were running since last 20 years without their being any knowledge. Although, the petitioners have submitted that in the handwriting expert’s report, the signature of the bank account holder as well as the signature over the withdrawal papers or other bank documents are matched, which falsify the allegation against them leveled by the complainant about forged signature, however, it is the allegation against the accused persons that the accused persons have opened the bank account by putting forged signature of the complainant and her late husband and when the same person i.e. the accused persons have put their signature in all the bank papers, their signatures are obviously would be the same. The nature of allegation that the accused persons running the bank account in the name of the complainant and her late husband by putting their forged signature, projecting themselves as mandate holder of their bank accounts, obtaining loan in the name of the complainant and her husband by putting their property documents behind the back of the complainant, are required to be examined by the learned trial Court, however, there is sufficient material in the charge sheet to prosecute the accused persons for the alleged offences. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Neeharika Infrastructure 7 Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others” 2021 SCC Online SC 315 has observed 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 Supreme Court has emphasised 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 in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, material available in the charge sheet and the allegation leveled by the complainant against the accused persons, clearly established prima facie case to file charge sheet against the accused persons and the charge sheet cannot be quashed at this stage. 9. In view of the material available in the charge sheet as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court does not find any scope for interference in the present petition to quash the entire proceedings of Charge Sheet No. 206 of 2022. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved