1 2025:CGHC:59903-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3742 of 2025 Harendra Dubey S/o Late Shri Kedarnath Dubey Aged About 57 Years R/o A/29 Vidya Vihar, Nehru Nagar (West), Thana Supela, Chowki Smriti Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Chowki Smriti Nagar, Police Station Supela, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shri Omprakash Sonkar S/o Shri Rambilas Sonkar R/o Purani Basti, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate For Respondent No.1-State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10 .12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that in light of the above stated facts, the grounds mentioned therein and the submissions made in the present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to take cognizance and exercise it's inherent powers as provided under the provisions of Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and allow the present application and further be pleased to a. quash the FIR bearing Crime No. 986/2025 (ANNEXURE P-1) registered with the Police Station Supela, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at the instance of respondent No. 2; b. any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the interest of justice, equity, fair play and good conscience.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2, being the complainant, lodged an FIR alleging that he had entered into an agreement for sale of a parcel of land with the petitioner on 27.03.2023. The complainant stated that the petitioner himself was due to purchase the said land from one Malkit Singh, who, in 3 turn, had an agreement for sale with the original owner. As per the complainant, he paid a sum of Rs. 64,41,000/- to the petitioner as advance, and the balance amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the registered sale deed. It was further alleged that despite repeated requests, the petitioner did not execute the sale deed and that the complainant suspected that the agreements executed between the original owner and Malkit Singh, and thereafter between Malkit Singh and the petitioner, were forged. On this premise, the complainant lodged the FIR for offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. 4. It is further submitted that the allegations are wholly false, concocted, and deliberately framed to falsely implicate him. It is stated that one Shri Madhukar Verma, the original owner of the land admeasuring 1.65 acres, Khasra No. 776/4, village Samoda, Patwari Halka No. 9, Durg, had executed an agreement for sale in favour of Malkit Singh, who, due to urgent financial needs, further executed an agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner on 16.09.2022. The complainant himself approached the petitioner for purchase of the land, and after being fully informed of the factual and legal position, entered into an agreement for sale with the petitioner on 01.02.2023. The agreement specifically disclosed the status of the land and the chain of agreements between the original owner, Malkit Singh, and the petitioner. The complainant paid Rs. 51,00,000/- as advance, and the parties agreed that the sale deed would be executed within three months. 4 5. However, despite best efforts by the petitioner, the original owner residing abroad did not appear for execution of the sale deed. Consequently, the complainant requested the petitioner to arrange sale of another land in its place. The petitioner had also entered into an agreement for sale in respect of a different parcel of land admeasuring 3.27 hectares situated at village Kachandur, Patwari Halka No. 17, District Durg, and at the insistence of the complainant, a registered sale deed for the Kachandur land was executed on 28.03.2023 in favour of the complainant’s company, Rowing Ice System Pvt. Ltd. The complainant also executed an agreement on the same day, confirming that the sale deed for the Kachandur land was executed at his instructions and that upon execution of the Samoda land sale deed by the original owner, he would execute a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner or his nominee. 6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant deliberately concealed the execution of the aforesaid sale deed dated 28.03.2023 and lodged the FIR with mala fide intention to exert pressure and demand exorbitant amounts. The dispute is purely civil in nature arising out of non- execution of a sale deed, but has been given a criminal colour by misusing the process of law. The FIR was lodged on 21.08.2025, after an unexplained delay of more than two years and four months from the date of the agreement. 5 7. During pendency of the FIR, the parties amicably settled the matter on 24.09.2025, wherein the petitioner returned the entire amount claimed by the complainant, and the complainant agreed to withdraw his complaint. On the basis of the said compromise, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court in M.Cr.C.(A) No. 1582/2025 vide order dated 14.10.2025. 8. In view of the above facts and the settlement between the parties, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR. Hence, the present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of cognizable offences and require thorough investigation. It is contended that the petitioner has played an active role in executing multiple agreements, receiving substantial amounts from the complainant, and failing to ensure execution of the sale deed, thereby giving rise to a prima facie case of cheating and forgery. Learned State counsel further submits that the issues raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS, and therefore, the FIR does not warrant interference at this stage. 10. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and have carefully perused the pleadings, documents, and 6 material available on record. 11. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the case records, it transpires that the allegations levelled in the FIR, when taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged. The nature of the transactions between the parties, the execution of multiple agreements, the substantial monetary components involved, and the allegations of inducement and fraudulent intention are matters which necessarily require a full, fair and comprehensive investigation. 12. This Court finds that several disputed questions of fact are intertwined with the rival claims of the parties, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings of this nature. Whether the petitioner acted in good faith, whether the complainant willingly entered into the agreement, whether any forged document was used, and whether the settlement subsequently entered into was voluntary or otherwise, are all factual issues that lie exclusively within the domain of investigation and, if necessary, trial. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake a mini-trial to appreciate evidence or to determine the correctness of the allegations. 13. The contention of the petitioner that the dispute is purely civil in nature cannot be accepted at this stage, particularly when the FIR contains specific averments alleging fraudulent and dishonest intention from the inception. Moreover, the delay in lodging the FIR, the compromise subsequently arrived at between the parties, 7 or the grant of anticipatory bail, by themselves, do not render the criminal proceedings liable to be quashed when the allegations prima facie constitute cognizable offences. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any perversity, illegality or abuse of the process of law warranting interference. The petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. The investigating agency shall be at liberty to proceed with the investigation strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made herein. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra