1 2025:CGHC:56854-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3404 of 2025 Mohit Sogoriya S/o Khyaliram Sogoriya, Aged About 39 Years R/o I-6, Avinash Kaunti Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Rakhi, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Smt. Vina Singh, W/o Sanjay Singh, R/o H.No. 320 Sector-N, Ashiyana, Lucknow, Pin- 226012, District Lucknow, (U.P.) 3. Umesh Kumar Chandra S/o Resham Lal Chandra, C/o Rishabh Singh, Flat No. F2a- 35/106 First Floor, Sector 27, Naya Raipur, Atalnagar (C.G.) Permanent Address- Bhatapara, Ward No. 02, Aarsiya Janjgir Champa 495690 4. Ajay Pandey S/o Late Shyamcharan Pandey, R/o Lig- 80, Vaishali Nagar, Front Of Paliwal Dairy, Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.11.24 18:02:57 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 24.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “It is respectfully prayed that kindly allow the instant petition under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing/setting aside the FIR No. 97 of 2025 registered under Section 318(4) of the BNS against the petitioner, and fair investigation against the actual culprit persons respondents No. 3 and 4. Copy of the concerned FIR is annexed herewith as Annexure P/1. 2. It is respectfully prayed that the entire records and case diary of the FIR No. 97 of 2025 registered by the P.S. Rakhi, District Raipur (C.G.) for offences under Section 318(4) of the BNS vis-a-vis the petitioner may kindly be called from the Police Station Rakhi, District Raipur (C.G.). 3. It is respectfully prayed that the entire criminal proceedings in connection with FIR No. 97 of 2025 3 registered by the P.S. Rakhi for offences under Section 318(4) of the BNS vis-a-vis the petitioner, may kindly be quashed/set aside, because it is bad, illegal, and untenable in the eyes of law. 4. It is respectfully prayed that Hon’ble this Court kindly direct to respondent No. 1 to start fair investigation in connection of FIR No. 97 of 2025 registered by the P.S. Rakhi for offences under Sections 318(4) of the BNS and make respondent No. 3 and 4 as an accused persons in the FIR No. 97 of 2025, of P.S. Rakhi District Raipur C.G. in the interest of justice. 5. It is respectfully prayed that any other consequent proceedings (if any), may kindly be quashed/set aside against the petitioner, because it is bad, illegal, and untenable in the eyes of law. 6. It is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to pass any other order in favour of the petitioner, as this Court deems fit in the interest of justice.” 3. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) seeking quashing of the FIR registered against the petitioner for the alleged commission of the offence under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, ‘BNS’). As per the factual foundation of the FIR, the 4 petitioner induced the complainant to part with a sum of Rs. 10,11,000/- on the assurance that he would secure admission of the complainant’s daughter in the MBBS course in a Government Medical College in Chhattisgarh. Relying upon such representation, the complainant transferred the amount as instructed. The assured admission, however, was never procured, compelling the complainant to lodge the report, on the basis of which the impugned FIR came to be registered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is contended that respondents No. 3 and 4 were the real individuals who approached the complainant and assured MBBS admission. According to the petitioner, he acted merely as an intermediary at their request and never made any independent representation. He further submits that Rs. 5,00,000/- was credited to the bank account of the petitioner’s wife only because respondents No. 3 and 4 insisted that the payment be routed in such a manner. It is further urged that once the petitioner realized that respondents No. 3 and 4 had cheated both him and the complainant, he refunded the entire amount on 21.08.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that before the lodging of the FIR, the petitioner had already submitted written complaints before Police Station Rakhi and later before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Raipur, but no action was taken. Instead, after an unexplained delay of more than 1 year and 9 months, the present FIR was registered allegedly in connivance with respondents No. 3 and 5 4. It is, therefore, argued that the FIR is malicious and deserves to be quashed, or alternatively, that respondents No. 3 and 4 should be brought into the fold of investigation. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel strongly opposes the petition and submits that the FIR discloses a clear cognizable offence. It is emphasised that the petitioner admittedly received part of the money— through the bank account of his wife—in connection with securing MBBS admission, which directly connects him to the alleged transaction. The State submits that the ingredients of cheating and dishonest inducement are squarely attracted. It is argued that the petitioner’s defence that respondents No. 3 and 4 were the true culprits, or that the amount was later refunded, constitutes a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated in a proceeding under Section 528 of the BNSS. The State submits that the law is well settled that at the stage of quashing, the Court is required to examine only the averments made in the FIR and not the defence of the accused. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material placed on record, including the FIR. 8. The scope of interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS) is extremely narrow. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the inherent power of quashing must be exercised sparingly and only in the rarest of rare cases. It was further held that when examining an FIR for quashing, the Court must accept the allegations at face value 6 without weighing their truthfulness or sufficiency. 9. The principle has been reiterated in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 6 SCC 73, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court underscored that police investigation must not be stifled except where no offence is disclosed. Likewise, in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, it has been held that disputed questions of fact are not amenable to adjudication in a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. 10. Applying these well-established principles to the present case, this Court finds that the allegations in the FIR, taken at their face value, clearly disclose the ingredients of the offence under Section 318(4) of the BNS, which pertains to dishonest inducement and delivery of property. The FIR specifically asserts that the petitioner assured MBBS admission and that the complainant transferred substantial amounts, part of which was received through the bank account of the petitioner’s wife, thereby creating a direct financial nexus between the petitioner and the alleged fraudulent inducement. Whether respondents No. 3 and 4 were also involved, whether the petitioner acted under a mistaken belief, or whether he subsequently refunded the amount, are all matters of factual determination, requiring investigation and possibly trial. These cannot be grounds for quashing the FIR at the threshold. 11. As regards delay in registration of the FIR, although the delay appears considerable, such delay by itself cannot be a ground to quash criminal proceedings unless it renders the entire prosecution inherently 7 improbable, as held in Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, (1997) 2 SCC 397. No such improbability is demonstrated here. 12. This Court finds no illegality, perversity, or mala fide on the face of the FIR that would justify exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. The petitioner is at liberty to put forth his defence during investigation and, if necessary, before the trial Court. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, and guided by the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to hereinabove, the petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan