1 2025:CGHC:8110-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 588 of 2025 1 - Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal Gugan Ram Agrawal Aged About 66 Years Caste Agrawal R/o Bhaiyathan Road, Surajpur, P.S. And Tahsil Surajpur Distt- Surajpur ( C.G.). 2 - Sandeep Agrawal S/o Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal Aged About 36 Years Caste Agrawal R/o Bhaiyathan Road, Surajpur, P.S. And Tahsil Surajpur Distt- Surajpur ( C.G. ). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer Police Station- Ambikapur- Distt- Surguja ( C.G. ). 2 - Bhola Prasad Kurey S/o Late Sonsai Kurrey Aged About 42 Years R/o M.G. Road Ambikapur Distt- Surguja ( C.G. ). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 17.02.2025 2 1. Heard Mr. A.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent / State. 2. The petitioners have filed this petition with following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quashed the F.I.R no. 715/2024 registered on dated 3.12.2024 at Police Station- Ambikapur, Dehat -Gandhinagar , Distt- Surguja (C.G) for the alleged offences U/s 120(B) & 420 of Indian Penal Code 1860 in respect of present petitioners, in the interest of justice.” 3. Prosecution story in brief is that on 03.12.2024, complainant Bhola Prasad Kurey lodged the written complaint before the police station- Ambikapur alleging that in the month of January 2024, son of petitioner No.1 Sanjeet Agrawal and other persons opened the office in MG Road- Ambikapur in the name of Subh Nives Stock Market Academy, advertised the name of office on face- book, instagram and newspaper and on the advertisement, several people showed interest to invest amount in the said company and the complainant was also interested to invest some amount in his company and visited in the said office and gave the cash amount of 3,40,000/- to the accused Sanjeet Agarwal and Rs 75,00,000/- was transfered by the relative of complainant in the name of accused Sanjeet Agarwal and some other person 3 transfered the amount in the name of Dev Kumar Kurey office in- charge and after receiving of amount, accused Sanjeet Agarwal did not refund the deposited amount to the complainant and to the other investors and accused Sanjeet Agrawal issued the cheque to some investors which was dishonored and when the complainant was pressurized for refunding the amount, then on 28.6.2024, accused Sanjeet Agarwal executed the agreement with the complainant. Letter on, he has closed the office and fled away and cheated to the complainant and committed the alleged crime. On the basis of complaint, police lodge the report for the alleged offence U/s 120(B) and 420 of Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners and other accused. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioners are innocent and they been falsely implicated in the present case. As per written complaint, there no any allegation against the present applicants regarding receiving the amount from the complainant and other persons and allegations are only against the present petitioners are that both of them advised people to deposit the amount in stock market. The main accused Sanjeet Agarwal is living separately and running the business separately and the present petitioners are living separately and no any business transaction or any connection of the petitioners with the accused Sanjeet Agrawal and the petitioner No.1 is the father and petitioner No. 2 is the brother of the main accused Sanjeet Agrawal. As per contents of the FLR, main accused Sanjeet 4 Kumar gave the cheque of the deposit amount to the complainant and other investor which was dishonored and no any allegation against the present petitioners about transaction of the said amount with the complainant and no any single amount has been received by the petitioners therefore they have been falsely implicated in the present case. The learned trail Court, allowed the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners in this crime on the ground that as per case dairy no any active role of petitioners in the said crime. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for quashing of the FIR bearing No. 715/2024 and submits that since the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present matter, this petition has virtually become infructuous and as such, the same may be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 7. Perusal of the records goes to show that petitioner No. 1 is the father and petitioner No. 2 is the brother of the main accused, namely, Sanjeet Agrawal who has taken the amount from the complainant and others on the pretext of investment in the share market and further, the petitioners have already been granted anticipatory bail by the trial Court, but considering the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed and the matter is still under investigation, as such, this Court does not find any good ground to 5 interfere in the present matter as the FIR as well as the impugned charge-sheet, discloses cognizable offence against the petitioners hence, it is obligatory that the trial be brought to a logical end. 8. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet