1 2025:CGHC:31526 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 263 of 2022 1 - Tuleshwar Kumar Yadav S/o Late Khorbahara Ram Yadav Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Bori, Police Station Balod, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dukhuram Yadav S/o Allara Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Kurdi, Post- Dundera, Police Station- Balod, District-Balod, Chhattisgarh 3 - Birendra Dhruw S/o Buddhuram Dhruv Aged About 46 Years R/o Village- Kurud, Police Station- Panduka, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Rajhara, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dewar Singh Bhuarya S/o Ukha Ram Bhuarya Aged About 46 Years R/o Village- Gainji, Police Station- Doundilohara, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh ( Complainant) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.07.10 10:39:05 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 09.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shikhar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondents No.1 / State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and be pleased to quash/set-aside the charge framed against the petitioner on dated 17-12-2021 as well the charge sheet and FIR, which is part of the charge sheet and also the criminal proceeding pending (Annexure P-1), in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts of the case in a nutshell is that one Dewar Singh Bhuarya (respondent No.2) made complaint before the Police Station Rajhara, District Balod (C.G.) stating therein that five years earlier one Dukhu Ram Yadav came to his house and stated that Unnati Real Estate Venture Private Limited and Unnati Breading and Rearing Farms India Limited Company are registered company and approved by the government and if you deposit amount in it, you will get more interest and under different schemes of RD and FD in five and half years, your amount will be doubled and also stated that if you work as a agent of the company, you will be given profit and by the representation made by him, the complainant made investment in a scheme of depositing Rs.100/- per month and in return, one bond paper was issued by the company in his favour and later, he started working as an agent in the 3 company, which conducted seminars in different places, where all the accused persons were present as a director of the company and by showing the plan chart of company and various attractive schemes, they took deposit from various persons and in turn, issued bond paper to them. The complainant further stated that he made lacks of rupees of deposit in the company belonging to different persons and in turn, received bond papers and when the complainant along with other persons felt of being cheated, asked the company to return their money, at that time all the directors closed the office of the company and ran away, then he made complaint before the police. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petitioners have not acted in any criminal force, the police has falsely been implicated the petitioners only on the basis of the complaint made against them. The learned trial Court ought to have considered the fact that the rules, which are mandatory to follow in respect of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositor Interest Act (hereinafter referred as Act), which have been made by the State Government, in which the procedure of complaint to be made to the competent authority is given under Rule-4 for which a detailed procedure have been given to register the complaint in Form-3 of Schedule have been given, which have not been complied with by the police and Section 5 of the Act states that "the competent authority will not be below the rank of District Magistrate", hence this rule have not been compiled by the police while registering the FIR. Further, by looking to the charge-sheet, no documents have been annexed with the charge-sheet stating that any 4 kind of intimation have been given to the competent authority in respect of the receiving of complaint against the petitioners and no any formalities which is prescribed under the mandatory rules framed in this behalf have been followed by the police authorities. The learned trial Court while receiving the charge-sheet as also at the time of framing of charge, have not looked into the statutory requirements in relation to the investigation of the case and have framed the charge against the petitioners, which is against the law, as such, the charge-sheet including the FIR and the charge framed against the petitioners, is liable to be quashed. 5. Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer submits that the charges have already been framed against the petitioners and trial is at the stage of evidence, as such, the present petition has virtually become infructuous and the same is liable to be dismissed. Further, during the investigation, it has been transpired that the petitioner’s company have allured the poor villagers and inhabitants by assuring that they will get high interest rate and returns in short duration and it has been found that the said company have cheated many persons of the locality and have taken crores of rupees from the poor villagers by committing cheating and forgery. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records annexed with the petition. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that charges have already been framed against the 5 petitioners on 17.12.2021, prima facie we find that there appears to be no error or infirmity in the order framing charge by the trial Court and further, the case is also under Section 420/34 of the IPC as the petitioners have allured the poor villagers and inhabitants to invest in their company by assuring that they will get high interest rate and returns in short duration and have cheated many persons of the locality and have taken crores of rupees from the poor villagers by committing cheating and forgery, as such, it cannot be said that no offence is disclosed against the petitioners, hence we do not find any good ground for interference in the present petition. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet