1 2025:CGHC:59902-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3738 of 2025 1 - Smt. Madhumita Pal W/o Shri Mahendra Pal, Aged About 40 Years R/o Near Shiv Temple, Gandhinagar P.S. Gandhinagar, District Sarguja (C.G.)......(Accused) 2 - Manendra Pal, S/o Mahesh Pal, Aged About 42 Years R/o Near Shiv Temple, Gandhinagar P.S. Gandhinagar, District Sarguja (C.G.)......(Ac- cused) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Gandhinagar, District Sarguja (C.G.)........(Prosecution) 2 - Sitara Manikpuri W/o Arun Kumar, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Balsedi, Police Station- Gandhinagar District Sarguja (C.G.)........(Com- plainant) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent No.1-State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer 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. Sunil Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, 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 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) with the following relief(s):- “It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quash the First Information Report / crime no. 290 of 2025 for the offence punishable U/s 318(4), 3(5) of BNS Act 2023 dated 16.05.2025 by the station house officer, police station Gandhinagar District Sarguja (CG) as well as final report no. 267 of 2025 submitted on 30.07.2025 for the offence punishable U/s 318(4), 3(5) of BNS Act 2023 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Ambikapur District Sarguja (CG) and on the basis of final report, the learned trial court has taken the cognizance on 01.08.2025 for the alleged offence U/s 318(4), 3(5) of BNS Act 2023 in the interest of justice.” 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in a purely civil dispute arising out of the functioning of a women’s Self-Help Group (SHG) constituted in the year 2024 under the National Urban Livelihood Mission (NULM). It is submitted that petitioner No.1, along with 37 women members, had formed the SHG with the objective of securing livelihood opportunities through micro- finance, and under the said scheme, various members obtained loans from different banks, details of which have been enumerated in the petition. After disbursement of the loan 3 amounts, each member withdrew 10,000/- from her loan account ₹ and voluntarily handed over the remaining amount to petitioner No.1 for the collective activities of the SHG. Petitioner No.1 had assured that she would deposit the requisite instalments towards the loan accounts of all members; however, due to financial constraints, a balance amount of 6,00,386/- remained unpaid out ₹ of the total loan of 15,00,000/-. ₹ 4 It is further submitted that when notices regarding loan repayment were issued by the respective banks, the members approached petitioner No.1 on 12.03.2025, whereupon a written agreement was executed, undertaking to deposit the remaining amount by 15.05.2025. Upon non-payment within the stipulated time, one member lodged a complaint on 16.05.2025, on the basis of which the police registered the impugned FIR and ultimately filed charge sheet dated 30.07.2025 for offences under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS. Learned counsel submits that a bare perusal of the FIR, complaint, investigation papers and final report reveals that no ingredients of cheating or dishonest intention are disclosed at any stage. The dispute, at its highest, pertains to non-deposit of loan installments, which is contractual and civil in nature and cannot give rise to criminal prosecution. 5 It is contended that petitioner No.2 has been roped in solely because he is the husband of petitioner No.1, despite there being not a single allegation or material against him. Learned counsel 4 submits that the issue of loan repayment is a matter exclusively triable by a civil court and cannot be converted into a criminal case merely to pressurize the petitioners. Reliance is placed on the settled principles of law laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012 (10) SCC 303, and the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shailesh Kumar Singh @ Shailesh R. Singh v. State of U.P., 2025 INSC 869, wherein it has been consistently held that criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to continue where the allegations do not disclose the essential ingredients of cheating or where the dispute is predominantly civil in nature. 6 It is also urged that the learned trial court mechanically took cognizance on 01.08.2025 without examining whether the materials in the charge sheet prima facie constituted any offence and without assigning any reasons, thereby rendering the cognizance order unsustainable in law. Learned counsel submits that the present petition squarely falls within the ambit of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 of the BNSS, and therefore impugned FIR, charge sheet and cognizance order are liable to be quashed. 7 On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and 5 submits that the allegations in the FIR, when read as a whole, clearly disclose commission of cognizable offences and warrant a thorough investigation. It is contended that the petitioner, being the principal office-bearer of the Self-Help Group, had collected substantial sums from various members on the pretext of depositing their loan instalments, but failed to do so, thereby causing financial loss and hardship to them. The subsequent execution of an agreement acknowledging the outstanding amount and promising repayment, but again failing to honour the undertaking, further strengthens the inference of dishonest intention from the inception. He further submits that the question whether the dispute is civil or criminal cannot be determined at this preliminary stage, especially when the materials collected during investigation prima facie establish active involvement of the petitioner in misappropriation of funds. It is argued that the issues sought to be raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. The cognizance order passed by the learned trial court, being based on the charge sheet and accompanying documents, does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8 We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and have carefully perused the pleadings, documents, and material available on record. 6 9 Upon careful consideration of the rival submissions and meticulous examination of the material placed on record, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner has failed to make out any ground warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. The allegations contained in the FIR, the statements of the members of the Self-Help Group, and the material collected during investigation prima facie disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged. The conduct attributed to the petitioner collection of substantial amounts from several women under the assurance of depositing loan instalments, failure to deposit the same, execution of a subsequent written undertaking, and repeated default thereafter, are matters that necessarily require a full and fair adjudication based on evidence. 10 This Court is not persuaded by the contention that the dispute is purely civil in nature. The existence of civil elements in a transaction does not preclude initiation of criminal proceedings where allegations of inducement, misrepresentation, dishonest intention, or misappropriation are specifically asserted. Whether the petitioner acted with dishonest intention from the inception, whether the members voluntarily entrusted their funds, whether the amounts were utilized for group purposes, and whether petitioner No.2 played any role, are all disputed questions of fact which cannot be examined in a petition under Section 528 BNSS. These issues can be properly adjudicated only during trial upon evaluation of oral and documentary evidence. 7 11 Further, the order of cognizance passed by the learned trial court does not reflect any perversity, illegality, or non-application of mind. The trial court has acted within its jurisdiction upon perusal of the charge sheet and accompanying material. At this stage, this Court cannot conduct a roving inquiry or undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence, which would amount to prematurely evaluating the merits of the prosecution case. 12 In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no ground to invoke its inherent or supervisory jurisdiction to quash the FIR, charge sheet, or cognizance order. The petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the trial court shall proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made herein, and shall afford adequate opportunity to both sides during trial. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra