1 2025:CGHC:53744-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3310 of 2025 Manisha Dubey W/o Hemant Dubey Aged About 51 Years R/o Katiyapara Mopkanaka, Dewangan Samaj Dharamshala, P.S. Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Home, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Station House Officer Police Station Sarkanda District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Basant Kumar Pandey S/o Shri Bhagat Prasad Pandey Aged About 58 Years R/o Near Sanjay Heights, Rajasv Colony, Sarkanda District Bilaspur (C.G.) Present Address E-457, Kailash Nagar Ntpc Colony, District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent-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 04.11.2025 1 Heard Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 and 2. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.11.06 10:35:58 +0530 2 2 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the impugned chargesheet FIR of Crime No. 1272/2024 (ANNEXURE P/1) registered at Police Station Sarkanda Bilaspur, for commission of offence under section 420/34 of Indian penal code as well as quash the cognizance dated Taking cognizance vide order dated 07.12.2024 and further proceeding (ANNEXURE P/2) taken by the learned JMFC Bilaspur in connection with crime no. 1272/2024 registered in Police station Sarkandas Bilaspur, for criminal case No 15824 /2024, in the interest of justice which relates to Petitioner.” 3 Brief facts of the case in a nutshell are that the FIR was lodged by one Basant Pandey alleging that his daughter Sonia, being a friend of the petitioner’s daughter since school days, led to cordial relations between both families. Owing to such familiarity, financial transactions took place between the complainant’s family and the petitioner’s family. It was alleged that from March 2022, the 3 complainant and his family members made online payments to the HDFC Bank accounts of the petitioner’s husband Hemant Dubey (Savings A/c No. 50100494586380 and Current A/c No. 50200070816521) and her son Kapil Dubey (Savings A/c Nos. 50100337405367 and 50200070103559). The total amount deposited was stated to be Rs. 93,76,005/-. Out of the said amount, the complainant and his family received a total refund of Rs. 89,07,000/- i.e., Rs. 24,31,000/- refunded from the account of Hemant Dubey and Rs. 64,76,000/- refunded from the account of Kapil Dubey. Thus, as per the complainant’s own version, only Rs. 4,60,000/- remained outstanding. 4 It is pertinent to note that no online transaction was ever made in the joint bank account of the petitioner Manisha Dubey. The said joint account (Canara Bank A/c No. 77302200001043) is admittedly operated and linked with the mobile number of her husband, Hemant Dubey. Despite this, the complainant alleged an additional cash payment of Rs. 46,00,000/- to the petitioner, though there is no documentary or legal material to support the same. On the contrary, the husband of the petitioner had issued two cheques dated 04.10.2022 (Nos. 193647 for Rs. 2,00,000/- and 193648 for Rs. 1,00,000/-) towards further repayment. 5 The Investigating Officer, during the hearing of MCRC (A) No. 730/2024, submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, that there was no transaction whatsoever 4 between the complainant and the present petitioner, as evident from the bank transaction records (Annexure P/3). Despite the above facts, the Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, submitted a final report in Crime No. 1272/2024, upon which the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, took cognizance for offences under Sections 420/34 IPC against the petitioner and others and registered Criminal Case No. 15824/2024. 6 Learned counsel for the petitioner respectfully submits that the petitioner has never instigated the complainant or any member of his family to invest their money in the business of her husband or son. It is further submitted that not a single penny has ever been transferred online by the complainant into the joint bank account of the petitioner. The entire financial transactions, as alleged by the complainant, were made only in the bank accounts of the petitioner’s husband, Hemant Dubey, and son, Kapil Dubey, and the petitioner has no concern, role, or participation in the same. 7 It is submitted that when the husband of the petitioner found that an outstanding amount of Rs. 4,60,000/- was due towards the complainant from the account of his son, he voluntarily made payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- through cheques bearing Nos. 193647 (Rs. 2,00,000/-) and 193648 (Rs. 1,00,000/-) dated 04.10.2022, from the joint bank account which is operated by him and linked with his mobile number. The petitioner further submits that she is ready and willing to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 5 4,00,000/- towards full and final settlement, although she bears no legal liability in the matter, only to demonstrate her bona fide intention. However, the complainant, instead of accepting such payment, made excessive and inflated demands and, with a view to harass and pressurize the petitioner and her family members, lodged the present false and frivolous FIR. It is further submitted that no amount has ever been transferred into the personal or joint account of the petitioner, Manisha Dubey. The alleged transactions are confined only to the bank accounts of her husband and son. The husband of the petitioner, Hemant Dubey, is running a small Bakery Shop, and all financial dealings are related solely to his independent business. The petitioner is a housewife and has no concern or involvement in the said business or its financial operations. 8 Learned counsel submits that the complainant and his family members cannot claim that any online transaction was made in the name or bank account of the petitioner. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner ever induced or persuaded the complainant or his family members to invest or deposit money in the accounts of her husband or son. Thus, there is no prima facie material on record to constitute any offence under Section 420 IPC against the petitioner. It is further contended that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, without properly appreciating the facts and materials on record, has mechanically taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 420/34 IPC 6 against the petitioner vide order dated 07.12.2024 in Criminal Case No. 15824/2024. Such an order, passed in absence of any legal evidence or material indicating the petitioner’s involvement, amounts to a gross abuse of the process of law. 9 Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution has failed to produce any material to show that the petitioner had any intention to cheat or deceive the complainant. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the petitioner ever met or interacted with the complainant in connection with any monetary transaction. Even otherwise, substantial refund of the alleged invested amount has already been made through the bank accounts of her husband and son, leaving at best a negligible disputed amount, which does not constitute any offence of cheating. It is, therefore, submitted that the prosecution against the petitioner is wholly malicious and has been initiated only with an intention to humiliate and harass her. In the absence of any iota of evidence against the petitioner, the filing of the charge-sheet and taking of cognizance thereon are manifestly arbitrary, perverse, and amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner deserve to be quashed in the interest of justice. 10 On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the present petition and submits that, as per the contents of the FIR, the disputed amount alleged by the complainant has 7 been transferred into the joint bank account held by the petitioner along with her husband and son. It is contended that since the said account stands in the joint names of the petitioner and her husband, the petitioner cannot escape her liability merely by asserting that the transactions were carried out by her husband or son. He further submits that the investigation revealed that the complainant and his family members had deposited considerable amounts through online transfers in the HDFC and Canara Bank accounts operated jointly or individually by the petitioner’s family members. Therefore, prima facie, there exists sufficient material to indicate the involvement and knowledge of the petitioner in the said financial transactions. 11 It is further argued that, in view of the joint nature of the account, any withdrawal or refund of the amount could have been made only with the knowledge or consent of both account holders, including the petitioner. Hence, the plea of complete innocence put forth by the petitioner is a matter of defence, which can be considered only during trial and not at the stage of quashing. Learned counsel for the State, therefore, submits that the order taking cognizance dated 07.12.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, suffers from no illegality or infirmity, and the material collected during investigation discloses the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 420/34 IPC. Accordingly, it is urged that the present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 8 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 12 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13 In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) 6 SCC 73, the Apex Court 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 of Cr.P.C. / 528 of BNSS 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 of Cr.P.C. / 528 of BNSS, only has to consider whether or not the allegations of FIRR. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 14 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, and upon perusal of the record and material placed on file, this Court finds that the primary allegation in the FIR pertains to the transfer of certain amounts through online transactions into the bank accounts of the petitioner’s husband 9 and son, and also in the joint account held by the petitioner and her husband. The petitioner has contended that she had no role in the said financial dealings and that no amount was ever transferred into her personal account. On the other hand, the State submits that the transactions were made in the joint account and that the petitioner’s involvement, being a joint account holder, cannot be ruled out at this stage. 15 Considering the aforesaid factual matrix, this Court is of the opinion that the question as to whether the petitioner had any active role, knowledge, or participation in the alleged financial transactions, and whether the said amount was transferred with her consent or involvement, are matters which require appreciation of evidence and can be effectively adjudicated only during the course of trial. These disputed factual issues cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. 16 At this stage, there appears to be prima facie material collected during investigation indicating the transfer of money into the account of the petitioner or the joint account maintained along with her husband. 17 Hence, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 420/34 IPC against the petitioner. 10 18 Accordingly, the present petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that any observation made herein shall be confined to the adjudication of this petition and shall not prejudice the rights or defences of the petitioner during the course of the trial. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu