1 2025:CGHC:54525-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3364 of 2025 Vivek Anand Shrivastav S/o Vinod Kumar Shrivastav Aged About 40 Years R/o A-1 Acpl Bhanduri Police Station Junagarh District Junagarh (Gujrat) At Present D-802 Vinstone Apartment Mira Road Police Station Kashimiri District Mumbai (Maharastra) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Khamtarai, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Vijay Kumar Verma S/o Late Shri Shital Prasad Verma Aged About 63 Years R/o Sakin Shrinagar Police Station Khamtarai, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) (Complainant) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Soumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.11.11 11:08:29 +0530 2 heard Ms. Soumya Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1 / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 and in exercise thereof call for the records, if necessary, admit the petition and may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and to quashing of the FIR no. 28/2021 as well as charge sheet filed before the learned trial court which is registered as criminal case no. 7567/2021 on 06.09.2021 and cognizance order dated 06.09.2021, for offence punishable under Section 420 read with section 34 of the I.P.C by the Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur (C.G.), Cognizance Order (First Order Sheet) dated 06.09.2021in Criminal Case No. 7567/2021 which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khamtarai, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) and (if any), all consequent proceedings incidental & accidental thereto and orders prejudicial to the petitioner herein and/or pass such other orders in favour of the petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem it fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Prosecution story in a nutshell is that the petitioner along with co- accused persons was engaged in the business of coal supply. It is alleged that co-accused Malkiyat Singh, using mobile numbers 9729842791 and 9416429791, and the petitioner, using mobile 3 numbers 8178078997 and 9687972314, contacted the complainant and offered to sell coal. Relying upon their assurance, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.10,00,001/- into Account No. 013411031174 of Pacific Commodities held by the petitioner in Dena Bank, Chorwad Branch, District Junagarh (IFSC Code: BKDN0310134). However, despite repeated requests, neither was the coal supplied nor was the amount refunded. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a written complaint before the concerned police station, on the basis of which Crime No. 28/2021 was registered against the petitioner and other co-accused persons, and investigation was initiated. During investigation, the petitioner was apprehended and interrogated, wherein he allegedly confessed to the offence and admitted to having defrauded the complainant of Rs.10,00,001/-. On completion of investigation, the concerned police station filed a charge sheet against the petitioner and other co-accused persons before the Court of JMFC, Raipur, whereupon the case was registered as Criminal Case No. 7567/2025, and cognizance was taken vide order dated 06.09.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no prima facie case made out against the petitioner and the allegations levelled in the FIR do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. It is submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on record to indicate that the petitioner has committed the alleged offence and, at best, the dispute between the parties 4 is purely civil in nature arising out of business transactions. The petitioner and the complainant were engaged in a business relationship, and due to certain commercial differences, their business dealings could not continue, whereafter, out of personal vendetta, the complainant lodged the present FIR. It is further submitted that there is no material on record to attract the ingredients of Section 420 of the IPC against the petitioner, as there was no dishonest or fraudulent intention at the inception of the transaction. Moreover, the complainant has not made any direct transaction into the petitioner’s bank account, and as per the record, the alleged payment was made to one Mr. Nitesh Kumar, and therefore, no offence can be said to be made out against the petitioner. It is further contended that the entire dispute, being civil in nature, cannot be given a criminal colour merely to exert pressure on the petitioner. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anand Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2019) 11 SCC 706. Hence, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of law. 5. Learned State counsel submits that the present matter pertains to an offence registered in the year 2021, and despite the lapse of considerable time, the trial has not progressed and charges are yet to be framed against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. It is submitted that the delay in framing of charges is primarily due to repeated attempts made by the petitioner to stall 5 the proceedings by filing successive applications and petitions at various stages. The prosecution further submits that sufficient material has been collected during investigation to prima facie establish the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged offence, and therefore, the question of quashment at this stage does not arise. It is contended that the veracity and genuineness of the evidence can only be tested during trial, and since the case is pending before the learned JMFC, Raipur for framing of charges, no interference is warranted by this Court at the pre-trial stage. 6. Learned State counsel further submits that a bare perusal of the charge-sheet clearly reveals the detailed description of the incident which prima facie establishes the active involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. As per the prosecution case, a written complaint was lodged by one Sheetal Prasad Verma stating that he is engaged in the business of coal supply. It was alleged that Malikyat Singh contacted the complainant from mobile numbers 9729842791 and 9416429791, and Vivek Srivastava (the present petitioner) from phone numbers 8178078997 and 9687972314, and allured him to purchase coal. On their assurance, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.10,00,001/- in the account of Pacific Commodities, Account No. 013411031174, maintained by the petitioner in Dena Bank, Chorwad Branch, District Junagadh – 362250 (IFSC Code: BKDN0310134). However, even after repeated requests, neither the goods were supplied nor was the amount refunded, thereby 6 cheating the complainant. During investigation, it was revealed that the accused persons, including petitioner Vivek Srivastava, in connivance with co-accused Malikyat Singh, continuously contacted the complainant from their respective phone numbers and induced him to deposit the said amount under the pretext of conducting a large-scale business in coal and scrap iron. Upon detailed inquiry, sufficient evidence was found against the accused persons for the commission of offence, and during interrogation, the petitioner confessed to having received the said amount and to defrauding the complainant. Consequently, the petitioner was arrested, and co-accused Malikyat Singh was also apprehended on 28.08.2021 and later released on anticipatory bail vide order dated 23.08.2021 passed by the learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Bail Petition No. 1415/2021. After completion of investigation, the concerned police station filed Charge Sheet No. 331/2021 before the competent court, finding sufficient evidence under the relevant provisions of law against both accused persons. It is therefore contended that the allegations are serious in nature and supported by material collected during investigation, and at this stage, there is no ground for quashment of proceedings against the petitioner. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 8. Upon a careful perusal of the record, FIR, charge-sheet, and other 7 material placed on record, it is evident that the present case pertains to an offence registered in the year 2021, in which the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has already been filed before the learned JMFC, Raipur. Cognizance has been taken, and the matter is presently pending for framing of charges. The charge-sheet discloses specific allegations against the petitioner regarding receipt of Rs.10,00,001/- in his bank account under the pretext of supplying coal and subsequently neither delivering the goods nor refunding the said amount. The materials collected during investigation, including documentary evidence and statements of witnesses, prima facie establish the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged offence. At this stage, the truthfulness or otherwise of such allegations can only be examined during the course of trial. 9. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, as the dispute involves triable issues based on facts and evidence. The petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to take all the pleas before the trial Court by moving appropriate application at the time of framing of charge. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet