1 2026:CGHC:6705-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 407 of 2026 1 - Amanraj Diwakar S/o Shri Rajkumar Diwakar, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Rachhabhata Nawagarh, Police Station Nawagarh, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) (Accused Person) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Nawagarh, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 2 - Gautam Ratnakar S/o Shri Hariram Ratnakar, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Giddha Police Station Nawagarh, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.02.07 11:09:49 +0530 2 06 .02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/ respondent. 2. The present CrMP under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- i) It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and pleased to quash the First Information Report No. 0342/2023 vide First Information. Report dated 22/11/2023 for the offence under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC registered by Police Station- Nawagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in the interest of justice. (ii) It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and pleased to quash the Charge Sheet No. 496-A/2024 vide Charge Sheet dated 31/10/2025 for the offence under section for the offence under section 420, 467, 471, 120 (B) of IPC filed against the petitioner by Police Station - Nawagarh, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in the interest of justice. (iii) It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and pleased to quash the order of Cognizance dated 05/12/2025, by which the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class 3 Nawagarh, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) has taken the cognizance in Charge Sheet No. 496-A/2024 for the offence under section 420, 467, 471, 120 (B) of IPC against the petitioner, in the interest of justice. (iv) It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and pleased to quash the order of Charge dated 03/01/2026, by which the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Nawagarh, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) has framed charge against the petitioner for the offence 34 of IPC and further under section 420, 467,468, 471, 120 (B), 34 of Criminal Proceedings in Criminal Case No. 833/2024 in State of Chhattisgarh Versus Rajkumar Diwakar and another, in the interest of justice. (v) Any other relief/order may also be granted that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the present case arises out of a complaint lodged by Respondent No. 02 on 22.11.2023 alleging that the petitioner’s father assured him of arranging a job as a Computer Operator in SECL, Bilaspur and obtained an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- partly in cash and partly through Phone Pay app, on the pretext of such employment. It was alleged that a forged joining letter was sent to the complainant and upon verification 4 from SECL, no such recruitment was found to exist. On failure of the petitioner’s father to return the said amount, FIR bearing Crime No. 342/2023 was registered at P.S. Nawagarh for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC, and the petitioner’s father was arrested. After investigation, Charge-sheet No. 496/2024 was filed against the petitioner’s father, who was granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court on 07.10.2025. Subsequently, a supplementary charge-sheet No. 496-A/2024 dated 31.10.2025 was filed implicating the present petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC, which already been registered as Criminal Case No. 833/2024, whereupon cognizance was taken and charges were framed against the petitioner on 03.01.2026 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B), 34 of IPC, leading to the filing of the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that from the face of the record it is evident that no offence is made out against the present petitioner, as the entire allegations in FIR No. 342/2023 dated 22.11.2023 are solely against the petitioner’s father and no specific role, act or mens rea has been attributed to the petitioner; the FIR was lodged without any preliminary inquiry and the dispute essentially arises out of business transactions relating to sale of cement and iron rods between the complainant and the petitioner’s father, during which amounts were transferred and out of the alleged Rs. 20,00,000/- an amount of Rs. 17,00,000/- had already been returned prior to lodging of the FIR, as supported by 5 documentary evidence; however, to illegally recover money and give a civil dispute a criminal colour, the complainant lodged a false report, pursuant to which the police mechanically registered the case and subsequently filed a supplementary charge-sheet against the petitioner without any incriminating material, leading to passing of orders of cognizance and framing of charges on presumptions and conjectures, and therefore continuation of criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 833/2024 is a gross abuse of the process of law and deserves to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent would submit that once the FIR has been registered, it has to be investigated and taken to its logical end. After investigation charge-sheet has been filed. Thus, at this stage, no interference is warranted in view of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021 (M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others) and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR and document annexed with the petition. 7. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly 6 and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 8. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing 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. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex 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., 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. Upon due consideration of the FIR, charge-sheet and material collected during investigation, it is evident that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, as the allegations disclose his active involvement in the commission of offences relating to 7 cheating and use of forged documents; the investigation has revealed that the petitioner was not a mere bystander but a beneficiary and participant in the transaction, and the supplementary charge-sheet was filed on the basis of evidence collected, whereupon the learned trial Court has rightly taken cognizance and framed charges; at this stage, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of evidence or assess the defence of the petitioner, and the issues raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact which can only be adjudicated during trial; therefore, no exceptional circumstances are made out for exercise of inherent jurisdiction, and the prayer of the petitioner deserves to be rejected. 10. After having gone through the allegations made in the impugned FIR and the charge-sheet, in our humble opinion it cannot be said that no offence whatsoever is disclosed against the petitioner as there is allegation of cheating and forgery of document etc. and in the light of judgment passed by the Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we do not find any good ground for interference as it cannot be said that no offence is disclosed. 11. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika