1 2025:CGHC:53743-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3307 of 2025 Lokesh Hirwani S/o Biselal Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Nayapara, Ward No. 01, Durg, Tahsil And Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Durg Kotwali, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. (In The Order Impugned The State of C.G. Is Arrayed Through The District Magistrate, Durg, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Purnima Sahu W/o Santosh Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o House No. 391, Ward No. 38, Behind Kabristan, Millpara, Near Goura Choura, Ganjpara, Durg, Tahsil And Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, 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/respondent No.1. 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, most respectfully and humbly prayed that the Hon'ble High Court may most kindly be pleased to allow the petition and may quash the impugned F.I.R. dated 06.12.2018 relating to Crime No. 1066/2018 registered at P.S. Durg Kotwali, District- Durg (C.G.) for offences u/S. 420, 201 of IPC against the applicant herein, ii) the impugned charge sheet on the basis of which Criminal Case No. 37798/2018 (State of C.G. vs. Lokesh Hirwani) is pending before the learned trial Court of JMFC Durg and iii) the order dated 06.03.2019 in above case by which charge has been framed as well as the entire proceedings in above case including the consequences (if any), in the interest of justice.” 3. The present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) is being filed by the petitioner assailing (i) the FIR dated 06.12.2018 registered as Crime No. 1066/2018 at Police Station Durg Kotwali, District Durg (C.G.) for offences under Sections 420 and 201 of the IPC, (ii) the charge-sheet filed thereupon in Criminal Case No. 37798/2018 (State of C.G. vs. Lokesh Hirwani) pending before the learned JMFC, Durg, and (iii) the order dated 06.03.2019 framing charges against the applicant along with the entire consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 3 4. The case of the respondent No.2/complainant is that she had given a contract to the petitioner for construction of her house situated at Mouja Sai Nagar, Baghera, District Durg, for a consideration of ₹9,00,000/-. It is alleged that the petitioner, after obtaining two blank cheques and the passbook of the complainant’s bank account, fraudulently withdrew ₹24,00,000/- from her account, leading to registration of the aforesaid FIR. 5. On the other hand, the case of the petitioner is that the dispute is purely civil in nature. The complainant had agreed to sell her half- constructed house to the petitioner for a total consideration of ₹6,50,000/-, which she duly received. In this regard, she executed an agreement to sell dated 03.10.2016 and a registered General Power of Attorney dated 07.10.2016 in favour of the petitioner. 6. Subsequently, the complainant filed Civil Suit No. 12-B/2019 before the learned First Additional District Judge, Durg, which was decreed in her favour by judgment and decree dated 02.09.2023. The petitioner has preferred First Appeal No. 37/2024 (Lokesh Hirwani vs. Smt. Purnima Sahu) before this Court, which has been admitted for final hearing, and interim relief has been granted in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 04.09.2024. 7. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing petitions under Section 528 BNSS registered as CRMP No. 2770/2025 and CRMP No. 3101/2025, which were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh upon payment of cost, which has since been 4 duly deposited. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire dispute between the parties is purely of a civil nature and does not disclose any criminal intent or element of cheating so as to attract the provisions of Sections 420 and 201 of the IPC. It is contended that the complainant herself had executed a duly notarized agreement to sell dated 03.10.2016 (Annexure A-5) and a registered General Power of Attorney dated 07.10.2016 (Annexure A-6) in favour of the petitioner, after having received full and final consideration of ₹6,50,000/-. It is further submitted that the respondent/complainant subsequently filed a civil suit for recovery of ₹24,00,000/-, which was decreed by the learned Civil Court, and the same is now under challenge in First Appeal No. 37/2024 (Lokesh Hirwani vs. Smt. Purnima Sahu) pending before this Court. The said appeal has already been admitted for final hearing, and by order dated 04.09.2024 (Annexure A-7), this Court has also granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner. 9. It is contended that the pendency of the civil proceedings and the grant of interim protection by this Court clearly demonstrate that the present criminal prosecution is nothing but a counterblast to the civil dispute and an abuse of the process of law. The petitioner has acted bona fide throughout, and there is no element of mens rea or dishonest intention at any stage to constitute the alleged offences. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the 5 continuation of criminal proceedings arising out of FIR dated 06.12.2018 (Crime No. 1066/2018) and subsequent charge-sheet and trial proceedings would amount to misuse of the criminal process and result in manifest injustice. It is, therefore, prayed that the FIR, charge-sheet, and entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 37798/2018 (State of C.G. vs. Lokesh Hirwani) pending before the learned JMFC, Durg, be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 528 of the BNSS. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the petition and submits that the allegations made in the FIR, on their face, disclose the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 420 and 201 of the IPC. It is contended that the charge- sheet has already been filed after due investigation, and the learned trial Court has rightly framed the charges against the applicant on the basis of the material collected during investigation. He further submits that the issues raised by the applicant involve disputed questions of fact which can be appropriately adjudicated only during the course of trial, and not in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. It is further argued that the pendency of a civil dispute or appeal does not automatically absolve the applicant from criminal liability if the ingredients of the offence are prima facie made out. Therefore, no case is made out for exercise of inherent powers to quash the FIR or the subsequent criminal proceedings. 6 11. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. 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 FIR. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 13. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the allegations made in the impugned FIR, when taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, prima facie disclose the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The police, after due investigation, has filed a charge-sheet, and the learned trial 7 Court has, upon consideration of the material collected during investigation, framed charges against the petitioner. 14. It is now well-settled that while exercising inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (analogous to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.), the High Court does not act as an appellate or revisional court to appreciate the evidence or determine the correctness or falsity of the allegations. The Court’s jurisdiction at this stage is confined to examining whether the uncontroverted allegations, as reflected from the FIR and charge-sheet, make out a prima facie case. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that while the High Court possesses inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, such power should be exercised sparingly and with great caution, and only where the complaint or FIR does not disclose any offence or where continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. The Court cannot, at this stage, enter into disputed questions of fact or assess the sufficiency or veracity of the evidence collected by the investigating agency. 16. In the present case, the petitioner has sought quashing of the FIR and charge-sheet primarily on the ground that the underlying transaction is civil in nature and that a civil suit arising out of the same transaction has already been decreed and is now pending in appeal before this Court. However, the mere pendency of civil 8 proceedings or the existence of a civil remedy does not preclude initiation of criminal prosecution if the ingredients of a cognizable offence are made out. It is equally well-settled that civil and criminal proceedings may proceed simultaneously if both disclose distinct causes of action. 17. The contention of the petitioner that the dispute is of a purely civil character and lacks the element of mens rea is a matter of defence which can only be examined on the basis of evidence adduced during the course of trial. The factual issues relating to execution of documents, payment of consideration, and withdrawal of the alleged amount are all matters which require appreciation of evidence and cannot be adjudicated upon in a petition invoking inherent jurisdiction. 18. Upon a comprehensive consideration of the factual matrix and legal position, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out to exercise the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. The proceedings before the learned trial Court cannot be said to be either illegal, perverse, or manifestly attended with mala fides so as to warrant interference at this stage. 19. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, stands dismissed. It is, however, made clear that any observation made herein is 9 confined to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not influence the learned trial Court while proceeding with the trial, which shall be conducted strictly in accordance with law and on its own merits. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu