1 2025:CGHC:8790-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 647 of 2025 1 - Sandeep Kumar Srivastava S/o Ajeet Kumar Srivastava Aged About 42 Years R/o Plot No. 8 Street No. 14/b Pragati Nagar Civic Center Bhilai (C.G.) - 490006 2 - Anusha Srivastava W/o Sandeep Kumar Aged About 37 Years R/o Plot No. 8 Street No. 14/b Pragati Nagar Civic Center Bhilai (C.G.) 490006 3 - Ravi Pratap S/o Dharam Singh Aged About 43 Years R/o Ward No. 2 Shanti Nagar Rajgarh Road Pilani Jhunjhunu Rajasthan - 333031 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Bodhghat Bastar Jagdalpur 2 - Ms. Alka Das W/o Vinay Das R/o 59 Orana Kemp Adawal Grampanchatat - Adawal Bastar Jagdalpur (C.G.) - 494001 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Ishita Mishra and Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.02.21 10:50:28 +0530 2 20.02.2025 1. Heard Ms. Ishita Mishra (through Video conferencing) and Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1 / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR No. 171/2024, dated 17/12/2024 (Annexure P/1) registered at P.S.-Farasgaon, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon (C.G.) in the interest of justice.” 3. Prosecution story in brief is that Petitioner No. 2 namely Anusha and the Complainant / Respondent No. 2 are former college batchmates and friends. Around a year ago, Petitioner No. 2 contacted the Complainant via Facebook and told her that she and her husband, i.e. Petitioner No. 1, namely Sandeep, were engaged in a share trading business with a reported monthly income of Rs. 4-5 lakhs. She further assured the Complainant that she would get high returns on investment and also guaranteed that the amount invested could be withdrawn at any time. Additionally, all the Petitioners allegedly enticed the Complainant with promises of foreign trips, leading the Complainant to rely on their representations. On the basis of aforementioned assurances, the Complainant transferred various amounts of money, cumulatively amounting to Rs. 22.5 lakhs/- [Rupees Twenty-Two 3 Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only] to the Bank Account of Petitioner No. 1, between 01.05.2023 till 03.10.2024 and further transferred an amount of Rs. 9 lakhs [Rupees Nine Lakhs only] to the Bank Account of Petitioner No. 3 namely Mr. Ravi Pratap, between 05.02.2024 and 05.09.2024. Thus, all the Petitioners, through dishonest and fraudulent means, cheated and deceived the Complainant, thereby causing her wrongful loss of Rs. 31.5 lakhs. It has further been alleged that the Petitioners enrolled the Complainant on an App namely QNET and also obtained her Aadhar card details. They also instructed the Complainant to record a KYC video, in which she was required to read and agree to the terms and conditions. Additionally, Petitioner. Nos. 1 & 2, along with others, also conducted training sessions via the Zoom app. They also created an Email-ID for the Complainant but did not share the password of the said E-mail ID with her. The Petitioners further persuaded the Complainant to introduce more individuals to QNET, claiming that she would earn substantial financial benefits/commission, by bringing more individuals into the business. Thus, the Complainant also referred Ms. Roshni Ghosh, Mr. Sandeep Rai, Ms. Nikita Yadav and Mr. Varun Mistri to the business. It has also been alleged in the FIR that whenever the Complainant inquired about the aforementioned commission, the Petitioners would avoid the topic and would further attempt to deceive her by gifting diamond and 4 gold sets. However, when she eventually suspected foul play, she had the gifts received by her and her group members appraised and discovered that the diamonds were fake and the gold was only 18 karats instead of the promised 24 karats. She further discovered that while the Petitioners claimed the gifts were worth Rs. 1,20,000, their actual value was only Rs. 20,000. Moreover, when she questioned them about the commission, they made vague promises of long-term earnings, eventually blocking her numbers and refusing to take her calls, thereby cutting off all communication. The prosecution has further alleged that the Petitioners have defrauded the Complainant by taking her money under false promises of high returns. Additionally, they misused her e-mail ID, hacked her mobile phone and accessed sensitive information. Moreover, whenever she demanded her money back, they threatened her and warned her to remain silent or face serious consequences. As per the prosecution, the Petitioners deceived and collected Rs. 82,000/- from Ms. Roshni Ghosh, Rs. 1.65 lakh from Mr. Sandeep Rai, Rs. 3.6 lakhs from Ms. Nikita Yadav and Rs. 4 lakhs from Mr. Varun Mistri, resulting in a total cheated amount of Rs. 41.57 lakhs. Thereafter, on 25.11.2024 around 9:00AM, the Petitioner No. 1 was illegally and unauthorizedly detained by the police officials and was kept in illegal detention for almost 58 5 hours and was only allowed to leave the police station on 27.11.2024 around 7:00 PM, with the condition to visit the police station the next morning. An FIR No. 0510/2024 was registered by Respondent No. 2/Complainant at Police Station, Bodhghat for offence punishable under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860 on 25.11.2024. The Petitioners preferred an Application under section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail before the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur, which was dismissed by the Ld. Court vide an order dated 30.12.2024 in relation to crime no. 0510/2024 registered by P.S. Bodhghat. The Petitioners were constrained to approach this Hon'ble Court, and this Hon'ble Court was pleased to grant Anticipatory Bail to all the Petitioners herein, vide an order dated 14.01.2025 passed in MCRCA No. 53/2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations raised in the present FIR, prima facie do not constitute any offence or make out any case under Section 420 IPC, 1860. Even if all the allegations levelled against the Petitioners in the present FIR taken at the face value are true, then too the basic essential ingredients for constituting any offence under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or under any statute, are completely lacking. The petitions of similar nature are pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to grant a 6 stay on proceedings in all the FIRs filed against the QNET officials, distributors/ IRs or individuals even remotely related to QNET. In a similarly situated matter, the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur vide an order dated 14.11.2024, has also been pleased to grant a stay on further proceedings arising out of the FIR No. 05/2024, registered under section 420/406/120B IPC at PS: Kotwali Ajmer. The present proceedings have been maliciously instituted by the Complainant, solely to protect herself by shifting the entire blame onto the Accused persons. Pertinently, the Complainant, acting in her personal capacity, unscrupulously influenced several individuals by making false promises of guaranteed monthly earnings. Further, when the said individuals suspected foul play and realized that they were not earning the promised amount, they demanded their money back and raised complaints against the Complainant and it is only then that she deflected responsibility, by falsely implicating the Petitioners in the present matter. Even as per the Direct Selling Guidelines, 2016 notified by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Government of India on 26.10.2016 and the Direct Selling Guidelines, 2017 issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh on 09.10.2017, even if a dispute exists between the Petitioners and the Complainant, then it is a dispute between a consumer and a direct seller and it ought to be adjudicated under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complainant has maliciously concealed the fact that Vihaan Direct 7 Selling (I) Pvt. Ltd. is a sub-franchisee of QNET Ltd. and it is an e- commerce based Direct Selling Entity, selling its products and services through word of mouth and referral marketing, also referred as Direct Selling business, through its direct selling personnel who are also referred to as Distributors/IRs, such as the Petitioners and the Complainant herein. The police officials are working hand in gloves with the Complainant as their actions appear to align disproportionately with the Complainant's interests, resulting in harassment of the Petitioners. Also, the police officials have miserably failed to register the FIR under the correct statute, i.e. BNSS, 2023 and have hastily registered the FIR under Section 420, IPC, 1860. Further, the Petitioner No. 1 was not even formally arrested and instead, he was merely picked up from his home, brought to the police station and placed in illegal detention for almost 58 hours, for no rhyme or reason. The Distributors/IRs earn commissions only once the sale of the product is concluded and they do not guarantee, assure, confirm or even allude to any returns, employment and/or interest to any of its customers and/or distributors/Irs. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 / State opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that once the FIR has been registered, it has to be investigated and taken to its logical end. Thus, at this stage, no interference is warranted. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of 8 Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that inherent power in a matter of quashment of FIR has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and when and only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in the provision itself. He would further rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, wherein the Supreme Court has laid down that when a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations made out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR. Therefore, in the light of the above mentioned judgments, the instant petition is absolutely misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned State Counsel also submits that mere perusal of the FIR goes to show that petitioners herein namely Sandeep Kumar Shrivastava, Anusha Shrivastava and Ravi Pratap committed fraud with the complainant Alka Das who runs business of cement work and hardware regarding doubling the money in the name of share trading. The petitioner Anusha Shrivastava took 9 complainant’s number through facebook and stated that she years Rs.4 to 5 lakhs per month by doing share trading and promised the complainant high returns on investing money. The petitioners lured the complainant and cheated her for amount of Rs. 31,50,000/- in total by connecting complainant through an app called QNET wherein the petitioners also used to give training to the complainant along with others. The complainant also alleged that the petitioner together deceitfully usurped complainant’s money and when she asked her money back, they threatened her to keep quite or something wrong will happen to you and then blocked her number because of which, she was unable to contact the petitioners anymore and ask for her refund. She further alleged that similar to the complainant, the petitioner have also frauded one Roshini Ghosh for amount of Rs. 82,000/-, Sandeep Rai for Rs.1,65,000/-, Nikita Yadav for Rs. 3,60,000/- and Varun Mistry for Rs,4,00,000/- totaling to amount of Rs.41,57,000/-, as such, these allegations disclose commission of a cognizable offence against the petitioners hence this petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in this petition. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Neharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 has observed that the power of quashing 10 should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 528 of the BNSS) is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Supreme Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 528 of the BNSS), only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records and further the allegations levelled against the petitioners namely, Sandeep Kumar Shrivastava, Anusha Shrivastava and Ravi Pratap, who committed fraud with the complainant Alka Das who runs business of cement work and hardware regarding doubling the money in the name of share trading and lured and cheated her for amount of Rs. 31,50,000/- in total by connecting complainant through an app called QNET wherein the petitioners also used to give training to the complainant along with others. The complainant also alleged that the petitioners together deceitfully usurped complainant’s money and when she asked her money back, they threatened her 11 to keep quite or something wrong will happen to her and then blocked her. There is further allegation that similar to the complainant, petitioners have also committed fraud with one Roshini Ghosh for amount of Rs. 82,000/-, Sandeep Rai for Rs.1,65,000/-, Nikita Yadav for Rs. 3,60,000/- and Varun Mistry for Rs.4,00,000/- totaling to amount of Rs.41,57,000/-, as such, F.I.R. discloses the commission of a cognizable offence against the petitioners and hence, no good ground has been raised to interfere in the matter and quash the FIR at this stage as the investigation has to be concluded and taken to its logical end. 10.In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this petition. The petition lacks merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet