1 2025:CGHC:53189-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3283 of 2025 Gopichand Krishnani S/o Dr. H.S. Krishnani Aged About 51 Years R/o Opposite Holy Cross School, Byron Bazaar, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Ministry Of Home, Secretariat, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur 2. The Station House Officer Police Station, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. P N B Housing Finance Limited By The Then/ Present Officer Lokesh Mahure Working As Bank Manager, P N B Housing Finance Limited, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 31.10.2025 1. The present CRMP has been filed by the petitioner with the JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.11.01 11:37:22 +0530 2 following prayer :- “ It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS (482 CrPC) and in exercise thereof be pleased to admit the matter and after hearing the parties in the matter, quash the entire proceeding under Criminal Case No.2141/2017 (State vs. Vikas Jain & ors) pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Raipur, arising out of Crime No.660/2016 registered at Police Station Civil Lines Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34 of the IPC, including charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet No.42A/2017 dated 14.8.2023 being not sustainable in law as also amounts to abuse of process of court and abuse of process of law in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Earlier the petitioner approached this Court by filing CRMP No.1719 of 2023 which was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 8.9.2025 granting liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to law against the supplementary charge sheet. Thus, this petition. 3. The facts of the case reveal that a supplementary charge sheet was filed, wherein Gopichand Krishnani was named as one of the accused. During the investigation, Sub-Inspector Gulab Singh obtained information from PNB Housing Limited, Raipur, and Jammu & Kashmir Bank concerning the disputed flats and related loans. The investigation disclosed that accused Gopichand 3 Krishnani, an authorized agent of Punjab National Bank, fraudulently registered Flat No. 34, Block A, Khushi Tower, which was originally mortgaged to PNB Bank in the name of Premlata Jain, in his own name and subsequently obtained a loan of 19.20 ₹ lakh from Jammu & Kashmir Bank. Further, it was found that he, in collusion with co-accused Ashok Khariyal, manipulated bank settlements of approximately 19 mortgaged flats valued at 3.50 ₹ crores for only 1.15 crores ₹ , thereby causing substantial financial loss to the Bank. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the registration of the impugned FIR and the subsequent filing of the charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet (Annexure P-1 colly) in a matter purely civil in nature amount to a gross infringement of the petitioner’s fundamental, constitutional, and legal rights. It is further urged that the petitioner was initially cited as a witness during the investigation but was subsequently made an accused without being afforded any opportunity of hearing. Moreover, no permission for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC was obtained with respect to the petitioner, as the earlier order of permission pertained only to certain specified individuals, and the petitioner’s name was not among them. Hence, his subsequent implication as an accused is illegal and violative of his rights. 5. Learned State Counsel opposed the submissions of the petitioner, contending that the registration of the FIR and subsequent filing of 4 the charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet were carried out strictly in accordance with law and supported by evidence gathered during the investigation. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioner go beyond mere civil disputes and indicate potential criminal misconduct, following a clear modus operandi by which the accused carried out the fraudulent transactions. The investigating authorities acted within their powers under the CrPC (BNSS), and no procedural lapses occurred in implicating the petitioner. Further, it is argued that the petitioner was not denied any opportunity of hearing, as the investigation is an executive function and not a judicial proceeding, and that Section 173(8) of the CrPC permits further investigation if new evidence emerges. The State submits that the petitioner’s fundamental and constitutional rights have not been infringed, the proceedings do not constitute an abuse of process of law, and the petition is without merit and liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records appended with the petition. 7. In view of the material on record, it is clear that the petitioner was involved in a calculated scheme to defraud financial institutions, as evidenced by the registration of mortgaged flats in his own name and the manipulation of bank settlements of approximately 19 properties, resulting in a loss of 3.50 crores to the Housing ₹ Finance Ltd. and substantial public interest. The investigation has revealed a systematic modus operandi, whereby the petitioner, 5 who is an authorized agent of the Bank, in collusion with co- accused, executed fraudulent transactions to secure undue financial advantage, demonstrating intent and criminal misconduct far beyond a mere civil dispute. The FIR, charge sheet, and supplementary charge sheet were registered strictly in accordance with law and based on documentary and testimonial evidence obtained from banks and witnesses. The petitioner’s claim of denial of opportunity to be heard is misconceived, as the investigative process under the CrPC (BNSS) is an executive function, and Section 173(8) CrPC allows further investigation if new evidence emerges, which in this case included the petitioner’s involvement. The petitioner’s attempt to frame the proceedings as an infringement of constitutional or fundamental rights is therefore without basis. Considering the deliberate and systematic nature of the fraudulent acts, the petition is wholly without merit, does not constitute abuse of process, and deserves to be dismissed. We are not inclined to quash the criminal proceeding as well as charge-sheet against the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the present CRMP is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti