1 2026:CGHC:4555-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 281 of 2026 Arti Das Mahant S/o Shri Adhri Das Mahant Aged About 58 Years R/o Qtr. No. Se/435, Cseb Colony, Korba (East), Civil Lines Rampur, Korba, Tehsil And Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Relation And Age Mentioned Here Are Correct) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Superintendent of Police Korba, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Station House Officer P.S. Urga Korba, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sukhi Ram Kashyap S/o Late Makhan Lal Kashyap Aged About 53 Years R/o Khairbhata Tilkeja, P.S. Urgra Korba, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 28 .01.2026 1. Heard Ms. Chetna Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 3. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.01.29 11:10:18 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition with the following reliefs:- “1. Allow the instant petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 filed by the petitioners; 2. Hon'ble court may be pleased to quash the F.I.R. bearing No.0322/2024 Registered on 03.09.2024 (Annexure P/1) at Police Station Urga, Korba, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) for the offences punishable under Section 420, 294, 506 and 34 the above-mentioned facts and of I.P.C. 1860. on circumstances and in the interest of justice; 3. Hon'ble court may be pleased to quash the entire Charge Sheet bearing No. 270/24 filed on 24.11.2024 (Annexure P/1) before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba for the offences punishable under Section 420, 294, 506, 34 of I.P.C. 1860. on the above-mentioned facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice. 4. Be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 26.11.24 (Annexure P/2) whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba has taken cognizance of the Charge sheet and registered the criminal proceeding U/S 420, 294, 506, 34 of I.P.C in Criminal Case no. 4036/2024 against the present petitioner. 5. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the Petitioners, in the interest of justice. An affidavit in support of is filed herewith.” 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present crime solely on account of her being an attesting witness to the loan agreement dated 26.06.2024 and has no role whatsoever either in the alleged monetary transaction or in the concocted allegation of assuring a Government job. It is submitted that the petitioner was neither a beneficiary of the alleged loan amount nor had any reason to induce or deceive respondent No.4. The entire dispute is purely civil in nature arising out of a loan transaction, which has been mischievously given a criminal colour only to exert pressure and to recover money by abusing the process of law. 4. Learned counsel further submits that a bare perusal of the FIR as well as the charge-sheet does not disclose the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 294, 506 IPC against the present petitioner. There is no specific, direct or overt act attributed to her. Merely being a witness to the agreement does not attract criminal liability. The continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. 5. It is also submitted that the conduct of respondent No.4, who is a Government teacher and is admittedly indulging in illegal money- lending business by charging exorbitant interest, has been completely ignored by the police. Despite a prior written complaint dated 21.08.2024 made by the petitioner and co-accused, no 4 action was taken, and instead, a false FIR was registered under the influence of the complainant. 6. Learned counsel submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering the factual matrix, has already granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner vide order dated 06.03.2025, which itself reflects the absence of criminal intent. The petitioner is a law- abiding citizen, presently working as a Junior Supervisor in Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, and the pendency of the present criminal case is causing serious prejudice to her service career, dignity, and reputation. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the investigation conducted by the police has revealed sufficient material against the petitioner. The FIR as well as the statements recorded during investigation prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences under the relevant provisions of the IPC. The role of the petitioner cannot be brushed aside at this stage, as her involvement forms part of a larger conspiracy relating to cheating and intimidation. He further submits that the charge- sheet has already been filed, cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, and the matter is now fixed for arguments on charge. At this stage, a detailed appreciation of evidence is neither permissible nor warranted in a petition seeking quashment. The defence raised by the petitioner involves disputed questions of fact which can only be adjudicated 5 during trial. It is therefore contended that no case for exercising inherent jurisdiction is made out and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully perused the documents on record. 9. From perusal of the charge-sheet, it transpires that the prosecution case is based on a written complaint lodged on 03.08.2024 by the complainant alleging that the accused persons had taken a sum of ₹5,20,000/- on the assurance of providing Government employment and, upon demand for return of the amount, abused and threatened the complainant. During investigation, a ₹50/- stamp paper dated 25.08.2024, allegedly executed by the accused in favour of the complainant for repayment of the amount, was seized. The investigating agency also relied upon alleged bank transactions, including transfer of ₹80,000/- through PhonePe and seizure of a cheque of ₹4,00,000/-. Statements of the complainant and witnesses were recorded, and on the basis of such material, the charge-sheet has been filed alleging commission of the offences. 10. At the stage of exercise of inherent jurisdiction, this Court is required to only examine whether the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation prima facie disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. A meticulous appreciation of evidence or adjudication upon the 6 defence set up by the accused is impermissible at this stage. In the present case, the allegations levelled in the FIR, when read in conjunction with the statements of the complainant and the witnesses as well as the documentary material collected during investigation, prima facie disclose allegations of inducing the complainant to part with money on the assurance of providing Government employment and the subsequent acts of abuse and intimidation upon demand for refund. The investigation has led to recovery and seizure of relevant documents, including the stamp paper acknowledging repayment, bank and digital transaction records, and cheques, which cumulatively constitute material forming the basis of the prosecution case. 11. The contention of the petitioner that she was merely an attesting witness and had no role in the alleged offence raises questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings seeking quashment. Whether the petitioner had any active role or shared common intention with the co-accused is a matter to be determined on the basis of evidence led during trial. At this stage, it cannot be said that the allegations are inherently improbable, absurd or wholly untenable so as to warrant quashing of the proceedings. 12. The submission that the dispute is purely civil in nature and has been given criminal colour is also not acceptable at this stage. The allegations, as they stand, disclose ingredients of cheating 7 and intimidation and cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that monetary transactions are involved. It is well settled that the existence of a civil remedy does not bar criminal proceedings if the ingredients of a criminal offence are prima facie made out. 13. The grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not ipso facto entitle the petitioner to quashment of the FIR or charge-sheet. Bail considerations stand on a different footing and do not amount to a determination of innocence or lack of prima facie case. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. The FIR, charge-sheet and the order taking cognizance disclose prima facie commission of offences and do not suffer from any legal infirmity calling for interference at this stage. 15. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that any observations made hereinabove are confined only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not prejudice the case of either party during trial. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all permissible pleas in accordance with law before the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu