1 2025:CGHC:43581-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 737 of 2025 1 - Harishankar Jharray S/o Parasram Sonkar Aged About 62 Years R/o Basantpur Chowk Rajnandgaon District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Abhijeet Jharray S/o Harishankar Jharray Aged About 34 Years R/o Basantpur Chowk Rajnandgaon District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - Yogesh Jharray S/o Harishankar Jharray Aged About 34 Years R/o Basantpur Chowk Rajnandgaon District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Dongragaon District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Shubhas Soni S/o Shri Laxminath Soni Aged About 41 Years Caste Sonar R/o Sadar Line Ward No. 5 Dongargaon Distirict - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - Anjani Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ramkripal Sharma Aged About 43 Years Caste Bramhan R/o Chicharikal Tehsil Chhuriya District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioners : Shri Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri Swajeet Ubeja, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Shri Anniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.08.28 18:42:06 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 28.08.2025 1. The present Cr.M.P has been filed with the following prayer:- “i. Quash the Charge Sheet No. 76/2024 dated 30.5.2024 along with order of cognizance of impugned charge-sheet dated 04.10.2024 and all consequential proceedings in FIR No. 70/2024, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon (C.G.), registered as Criminal Case No. 6908/2024 under Sections 420, 506, and 34 IPC. ii. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned Criminal Case No. 6908/2024 under Sections 420, 506, and 34 IPC, P.S. Dongargaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G), titled as 'State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Harishankar Jharray and others' currently pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon (C.G). iii. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case along with cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the applicants.” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainants Shubhas Soni & Anjani Kumar Sharma lodged an FIR alleging therein that Harishankar Jharray/petitioner No.1 had published offer regarding sale of his land in the news paper, on which the respondents- Subhash Soni and Anjani Kumar Sharma contacted Harishankar Jharray. 3 Thereafter, an agreement was executed between the petitioners and complainant on 02.11.2021 for 13.85 acres of land owned by Harishankar Jharrai, with a condition that they could sell the agreed land to any other person and according to the agreement, the deal was made to sell the land @ Rs.30,00,101/- per acre and Rs. 50,000/- was given in cash as advance money and cheques of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 2,50,000/- were given to the petitioners. As per the agreement Rs. 1.00 Crore has already been given to the petitioner No. 1. It is further alleged that despite receiveing Rs.1.00 Crore, the petitioner No.1 through deceptive means, facilitated the sale of the rear portion of the land (part of the agreed land) to Siddharth Golcha in the name of his wife. As per the complainants, the land sold to Siddharth Golcha (3.87 acres) was part of the agreed land. The complainants claimend that they asked Harishankar Jharray to execute the sale deed for the remaining portion of the land under his and his wife’s ownership. However, Harishankar Jharray allegedly closed his bank account intentionally, preventing the deposit of the remaining payment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil in nature as the civil suit has already been filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 against the petitioner No.1, in which, notice has been issued to petitioner No.1, who has put an appearance and the present prosecution has been lodged just as pressure tactics to compromise with the complainant in the civil litigation, The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of petitioner No.1 and there is only allegation against them that they have 4 threatened the complainant. Learned counsel submits that the criminal case appears to have been filed solely to exert undue pressure on the petitioners and compel them to execute the sale deed in favor of the complainants. Criminal liability requires the presence of mens rea (guilty intent). In the present case, the dispute stems from a contractual obligation, and there is no evidence to show that the petitioners acted with criminal intent. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/ complainants would submit that the agreement for sale of the land was executed on 02.11.2021 and it was agreed that the complainants would pay an amount of Rs. 1.00 crore to the petitioner No. 1 in four instalments and it was agreed that agreement would be registered within 18 months i.e. till 30.04.2023. During the said period the respondents made the payment of Rs. 1.00 crore but when they asked for registry, the petitioners did not show any interest and also did not return the amount, further, the SBI account of branch Dongargaon which was used for transaction was also closed in order to defraud the respondents despite the fact that they are always ready and willing to purchase the subject land by paying the due amount. Learned counsel submits that the said conduct of the petitioners is fraudulent in nature and amounts to cheating with the respondetns as they have taken the advance amount and even after the lapse of more than one year of the date till which the registration was to be done, the petitioners did not show any interest neither they return back the amount and also closed their account. 5 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents. 6. Bare perusal of the pleadings, it is manifest that the dispute between the petitioners and the complainants is purely of civil in nature and no criminal offence is made out against the petitioners. It is also manifest that the agreement for sale of the land was executed and financial transactions also took place between the parties with respect of subject land. Thus, in the opinion of this Court owing to some dispute in respect of the sale of agreement of the land and for which, the impugned FIR has been lodged by giving the criminal nature to a dispute, which is purely civil in nature. 7. Recently, the Apex Court, in Shailesh Kumar Singh Alias Shailesh R. Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. {Cr.A. No. 2963/2025 : 2025 INSC 869}, observed as under: “10. How many times the High Courts are to be reminded that to constitute an offence of cheating, there has to be something more than prima facie on record to indicate that the intention of the accused was to cheat the complainant right from the inception. The plain reading of the FIR does not disclose any element of criminality. 11. The entire case is squarely covered by a recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of “Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh” reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690. In the said decision, the entire law as to what constitutes cheating and criminal breach of trust respectively has been exhaustively explained. It appears that this very 6 decision was relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the High Court. However, instead of looking into the matter on its own merits, the High Court thought fit to direct the petitioner to go for mediation and that too by making payment of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the 4th respondent as a condition precedent. We fail to understand, why the High Court should undertake such exercise. The High Court may either allow the petition saying that no offence is disclosed or may reject the petition saying that no case for quashing is made out. Why should the High Court make an attempt to help the complainant to recover the amount due and payable by the accused. It is for the Civil Court or Commercial Court as the case may be to look into in a suit that may be filed for recovery of money or in any other proceedings, be it under the Arbitration Act, 1996 or under the provisions of the IB Code, 2016. xxx xxx xxx 13. We also enquired with the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4 whether his client has filed any civil suit or has initiated any other proceedings for recovery of the money. It appears that no civil suit has been filed for recovery of money till this date. Money cannot be recovered, more particularly, in a civil dispute between the parties by filing a First Information Report and seeking the help of the Police. This amounts to abuse of process of law. 7 8. From the materials available on record, we are of the view that this is a fit case where this Court should exercise its powers under Section 528 of the BNSS and quash the Charge-sheet No.76/2024 dated 30/05/2024 along with the order of cognizance dated 04/10/2024 and all consequential proceedings in FIR dated 22.07.2024 bearing FIR No. 70/2024 at Police Station Dongargaon, District- Rajnandgaon, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon as Criminal Case No.6908/2024 for the offences under Sections 420, 506, 34 of IPC. Ordered accordinly. 9. Resultantly, the petition stands allowed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/ Amardeep