1 2026:CGHC:20110-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1668 of 2024 Ramesh Chandra Singh @ Chotu S/o Late Anant Singh Aged About 54 Years R/o Lig-7, Vaihali Nagar, Supela, District - Bhilai, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Ambikapur, District - Ambikapur, (Sarguja), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Gurudeep Singh S/o Ajit Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Near Jodapipal, District - Ambikapur (Sarguja), Chhattisgarh. (Complainant) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30/04/2026 1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of FIR No. 495/2023 dated VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.05.04 20:45:16 +0530 2 01.08.2023 registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District Sarguja for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and the consequential charge-sheet filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs:- “A) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly quash and set-a-side the F.I.R. No. 495/2023, Dated: 01/08/2023 (ANNEXURE-P1), registered with P.S. Ambikapur, District Ambikapur (Sarguja), Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under section 420 of Indian Penal Code, in the interest of Justice. B) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly quash and set-a-side the Charge-sheet filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh in FIR. No.495/2023, in the interest of Justice. C) That any other relief Hon’ble Court deems feet may also be granted.” 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner, being the proprietor of Bolbam Company, entered into an oral agreement with respondent No.2 for sale of a PC450 excavator crane for a total consideration of Rs.32,00,000/-. It was agreed between the parties that the payment would be made in installments and the delivery of the crane would be effected upon payment of the entire consideration amount. In pursuance thereof, respondent No.2 paid a sum of Rs.10,01,000/- through bank transactions and also issued two cheques as security. It is the case of 3 the petitioner that, at the instance of respondent No.2, the crane was kept unused and maintained by engaging staff, incurring monthly expenses, however, respondent No.2 failed to clear the remaining amount despite repeated requests. ******* It is further the case of the petitioner that when respondent No.2 did not fulfill his part of the agreement and failed to make the balance payment, the petitioner proceeded to give the crane on rent, whereafter respondent No.2 lodged complaints before the authorities and subsequently the impugned FIR came to be registered alleging that the petitioner had cheated him by receiving money and not delivering the crane. Upon investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet for the offence under Section 420 IPC against the petitioner, which has been challenged in the present petition on the ground that the dispute is purely civil in nature arising out of a contractual transaction. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR and consequential charge-sheet are nothing but an abuse of the process of law, as the entire dispute between the parties arises out of a purely commercial transaction pertaining to sale of an excavator crane and is civil in nature. It is contended that there was an oral agreement between the parties for sale of the crane for a total consideration of Rs.32,00,000/-, out of which only a part payment was made by respondent No.2, and the delivery was agreed to be effected only upon payment of the entire consideration amount. It is further submitted that there was no dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioner from the very inception of the transaction, which is a sine qua 4 non for constituting an offence under Section 420 of IPC, and at best, the allegations disclose a case of breach of contract for which civil remedies are available. Placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673, Naresh Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 196, Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 and Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2023) 5 SCC 360 it is argued that criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to be used as a tool for settling civil disputes, and therefore, the impugned FIR and charge- sheet deserve to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Learned State counsel, opposing the petition, submits that the impugned FIR has been registered on the basis of a complaint disclosing cognizable offence and, upon due investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. It is contended that the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during investigation clearly prima facie establish the ingredients of cheating, inasmuch as the petitioner induced respondent No.2 to part with a substantial amount on the pretext of sale of the excavator and thereafter failed to deliver the same. It is further submitted that the grounds raised by the petitioner pertain to disputed questions of fact and constitute his defence, which cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Placing reliance on the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC Online SC 315 it is argued that the inherent 5 jurisdiction of this Court is to be exercised sparingly and that at this stage, the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial or appreciate evidence. Therefore, it is submitted that sufficient material exists to proceed against the petitioner and the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposes the petition and submits that the petitioner, with a dishonest intention from the very inception, induced respondent No.2 to part with a substantial amount on the false assurance of selling and delivering the excavator crane, but failed to do so and instead misappropriated the amount. It is contended that despite receiving more than Rs.10,00,000/-, the petitioner neither executed any formal agreement nor handed over possession of the crane and, on the contrary, utilized the machinery for his own benefit, thereby causing wrongful loss to respondent No.2. It is further submitted that the allegations made in the FIR, supported by the statements recorded during investigation, clearly disclose the commission of an offence under Section 420 of IPC, and the plea of the petitioner that the dispute is civil in nature is misconceived. It is argued that the intention to cheat can be gathered from the conduct of the petitioner and the surrounding circumstances, which can only be examined during trial. Hence, it is prayed that this Court may not exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the present petition. 6 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is required to examine whether the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, disclose the commission of the offence under Section 420 of IPC against the petitioner. 9. The gravamen of the allegation against the petitioner is that respondent No.2 paid an amount of approximately Rs.10,01,000/- towards purchase of a PC450 excavator crane, however, the same was not delivered to him. It is not in dispute that the transaction between the parties emanates from an oral agreement for sale of machinery for a total consideration of Rs.32,00,000/-, wherein the payment was to be made in installments and delivery was contingent upon payment of the entire consideration amount. The material on record prima facie reflects that the dispute arises out of a commercial transaction between the parties. There is no specific allegation or material to demonstrate that at the very inception of the transaction the petitioner had any fraudulent or dishonest intention to deceive respondent No.2. Mere non-delivery of the crane or failure to complete the transaction, in absence of such initial mens rea, would not ipso facto constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has laid down the categories of cases where the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings, including where the allegations, even if taken at 7 their face value, do not constitute any offence or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide. Similarly, in Sachin Garg v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 82, it has been reiterated that a purely commercial dispute ought not to be given a criminal colour. In Paramjeet Batra (supra) and Sarabjit Kaur (supra), the Apex Court has categorically held that a mere breach of contract, without anything more, would not attract criminal prosecution for cheating. Further, in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1, the Constitution Bench, while dealing with registration of FIR, has observed that in cases involving commercial transactions and abnormal delay, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted before registration of FIR, and it was held that: “Preliminary inquiry may be made in cases relating to matrimonial disputes/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution…” which underscores the need for caution in criminalizing commercial disputes. 11. In the present case, the record further reflects that the parties were engaged in a business transaction involving sale of heavy machinery, part payments were made, and the dispute essentially pertains to non- payment of the balance consideration and consequential non-delivery. The defence taken by the petitioner that the machinery was to be delivered only upon full payment and that expenses were incurred for its maintenance, though matters of evidence, reinforce the commercial nature of the transaction. The absence of any written agreement or specific material indicating fraudulent inducement at inception, coupled with the conduct of the parties, indicates that the dispute is 8 predominantly civil in nature. The allegations do not prima facie disclose entrustment or dishonest misappropriation so as to attract criminal liability beyond the realm of a contractual dispute. 12. Applying the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, particularly in Bhajan Lal (supra), Paramjeet Batra (supra), and Sachin Garg (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case falls within the category where a civil dispute has been given the colour of a criminal offence. Continuation of the criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to abuse of the process of Court, especially when the essential ingredient of dishonest intention at the inception is conspicuously absent. 13. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that this is a fit case for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. 14. Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 495/2023 dated 01.08.2023 registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District Sarguja for the offence under Section 420 of IPC, the charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto and all consequential proceedings pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur are hereby quashed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved