1 2025:CGHC:58767-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3677 of 2025 Anish Juliyas S/o Pipal Chand Juliyas Aged About 41 Years R/o Tikripara, Takhatpur, Currently Residing At Guru Vihar Colony, Near Muktidham, Thana Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station City Kotwali, District Bilaspur, (C.G.) 2. Smt. Swati Sahu W/o Shri Sanket Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Near Hardev Lal Mandir, Gondpara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 04.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.12.04 18:08:45 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the applicant with the following prayers: “A. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the FIR No. 95 of 2023 (Annexure A/1) dated 27.02.2023 under Section 420 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur, C.G. with respect to the petitioner. B. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the order of taking cognizance dated 19.05.2025 (Annexurre A/2) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, C.G. under Section 262 read with Section 3(5) of BNS. C. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the framed charges (Annexure A/3) dated 19.05.2025, under Section 120B, 419/34 and 420/34 of IPC by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, C.G. D. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3249 of 2023 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Bilaspur, C.G., with respect to the applicant.” 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complainant/respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint at Police Station, City Kotwali, on 27.02.2023, stating that on 09.04.2021, the applicant, along with other co-accused, offered the complainant a job at CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur. It is further contended that the applicant introduced co- accused, Stuti Juliyas, who is the wife of the applicant, to the complainant. The co-accused allegedly pretended to be the P.A. of the 3 Dean at CIMS Hospital and, together with the applicant, obtained a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- from the complainant. It is alleged that the applicant, along with the other co-accused, committed fraud against the complainant. Subsequently, the police registered FIR No. 95/2023 under Section 420 of the IPC. Thereafter, the police submitted the charge-sheet/final report, upon which the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, C.G., took cognizance and passed the order for framing of charges dated 19.05.2025, framing charges under Sections 120-B, 419/34, and 420/34 of the IPC in Criminal Case No. 3249/2023, thereby initiating criminal proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the complainant did not mention the name of the present applicant in her complaint, and the FIR has not been registered in the applicant’s name. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated, no prima facie offence is made out against him, and he is of a simple nature who has not committed any alleged offence. The said offence has allegedly been registered against the wife of the applicant, not the applicant himself. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant did not receive any amount from the complainant or the other co-accused. Therefore, he has been falsely implicated. On perusal of the FIR and complaint, it is argued that there are no specific allegations against the applicant and no positive act has been attributed to him to cause harm or commit fraud against the complainant. It is further submitted that the 4 alleged incident took place on 09.04.2021, but the FIR was registered nearly two years later, on 27.02.2023, indicating delay and a possible conspiracy with fabricated facts. Hence, it is argued that the FIR, framed charges, and criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions of the applicant and submits that the investigation has been conducted strictly in accordance with law. Upon completion of the investigation, the final report/charge-sheet was duly filed before the learned trial Court, which has taken cognizance of the offences and framed charges against the applicant. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the materials placed on record. 8. The legal position governing quashing of criminal proceedings is well settled. The power to quash an FIR, complaint, or charge-sheet is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the investigation of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations in the FIR or complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). 9. In the present case, after completion of the investigation, a 5 charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, and the learned trial Court, upon due consideration of the materials, has found prima facie evidence of the commission of the alleged offences and has taken cognizance. Consequently, the trial has been lawfully initiated. 10. From a careful perusal of the order framing charge dated 19.05.2025, it appears that on the date of the incident, 09.04.2021, at 13:00 hours, the applicant, together with his wife, at the place of occurrence—Godpāra, near Kamal Lodge, the complainant’s office, Police Station City Kotwali area, District Bilaspur (C.G.)—acting with common intention, instigated the co-accused to obtain money from the complainant, Swati Sahu, in the name of securing employment as a Dental Doctor at SIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, thereby entering into a criminal conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust and participating in it. It is further stated that the applicant, together with his wife, caused the complainant to speak to a person who falsely introduced himself as the P.A. to the Dean and, through impersonation and deception, obtained a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- from the complainant. Till date, the alleged employment has not been provided, and the applicant, along with his wife, is alleged to have dishonestly induced the complainant and deceitfully obtained the said amount. 11. The above-mentioned acts, if proven, constitute offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 419/34, and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, which fall within the cognizance of the trial Court. 12. Considering the submissions of the parties, the materials on 6 record, and the settled legal position, we find no sufficient ground to quash the FIR, order framing charges or the criminal proceedings against the applicant at this stage. The trial Court is the appropriate forum to examine the evidence and determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. 13. Accordingly, the petition seeking quashing of FIR, order framing charge and criminal proceedings is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan