1 2026:CGHC:1594-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 73 of 2026 1 - Bhaskar Prasad Tripathi S/o Bhagwat Prasad Tripathi Aged About 56 Years R/o House No. 1469, Vivekanand Nagar, Phase-Ii, Mopka, P/s Sarkanda, Tehsil And Dist- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Suprentendent Of Police District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sho Police Station - Sarkanda, Dist- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ajit Shukla S/o J.K. Shukla R/o Agroha Housing Society, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Dinesh Pratap Singh S/o Late Ishwari Singh R/o Mig-14, R.P. Nagar, Phase-1, Kosabadi, Korba (C.G.), At Present Address - Quarter No. D-31, Vasudev Bhawan, Shivam City, Rajkishore Nagar, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rupesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12/01/2026 1. Heard Mr. Rupesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.01.14 10:43:18 +0530 2 Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned Dy. Advocate General, appearing for the Respondent/State. 2. Present is a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the charge-sheet No. 1335 of 2025, arising out of the FIR No. 1618/2025 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur for the offence under Section 420, 34 of the IPC and also to quash the order dated 06.12.2025, which is the order taking cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 33592 of 2025 and prayed for the following reliefs: “1. This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record pertaining the case of the petitioner. 2. This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to Quash the Chargesheet/final report No.1335/2025 dated 02.12.2025 arising out of FIR No. 1618/2025 registered by Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC against the Petitioner; 3. This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to Quash the order dated 06.12.2025 for taken cognizance upon filing of the final report/chargesheet passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, for registration of Criminal case no.33592 /2025, which is pending before concerned court. 4. Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused in the offence of Crime No. 1618/2025 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, on 22.11.2025, for the offence under Section 420, 34 of IPC, on the report lodged by the complainant Ajeet Shukla. It is alleged in the FIR that he entered into an agreement to purchase the house of the petitioner Bhaskar Tripathi, and an 3 agreement was executed on 26.04.2024. The accused Dinesh Pratap Singh was the middleman and witness to the agreement. Out of total sale consideration, he transferred Rs. 36 lakhs through the bank account in the bank account of the petitioner Bhasker Tripathi on 30.04.2024. The time to execute the sale deed was fixed as three months. After the completion of three months, without informing the complainant, the petitioner Bhaskar Tripathi and Dinesh Pratap Singh, with the collusion of each other, prepared another agreement by suppressing the fact that the subject house was mortgaged with AU Bank Raipur, and they showed him the xerox copy of the title deed of the subject house. Considering the cheating by the accused persons and the preparation of a forged agreement by them, he lodged a report to the police, on which the FIR has been registered. During the investigation, the agreement was seized, statements of the witnesses were recorded, and a charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, for the offence under Section 420, 34 of IPC, against the petitioner and co-accused Dinesh Pratap Singh. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that there is no cheating or mala fide intention of the petitioner to cheat the complainant by forging any document. The petitioner was always ready and willing to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant. But the complainant was not willing to purchase the subject house. The dispute is purely civil in nature, which, given the colour of criminality and the allegation made by the complainant, is not bona fide. Only to extract money from the accused/petitioner, he lodged the FIR with the collusion of the police authorities. The agreement dated 26.04.2024 and 29.07.2024 clearly establishes the contractual relationship between the parties, for which the remedy is a civil suit for specific performance of the contract or for compensation. He would further submit that earlier, the non-cognizable offence information report was given to the complainant by the same police on 10.11.2025, but subsequently, on the same set of allegations, the FIR is registered. There is no sufficient material against the petitioner for taking cognizance of the offence and proceeding with the criminal 4 case registered against him, and the order taking cognizance, charge-sheet, and the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner may be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there are sufficient material against the petitioner that he along with co-accused Dinesh Pratap Singh proposed the sale of the house of the petitioner to the complainant and obtained the advance amount of Rs. 40 lakhs by suppressing that the subject house was already mortgaged with the AU Bank, Raipur. Suppressing the encumbrance over the subject property, obtaining huge money from the complainant and preparing another agreement would prima facie sufficient to satisfy the ingredients of the offence of cheating. The allegation against the petitioner requires evidence, and at this stage, it cannot be said that a false allegation has been made by the complainant against the petitioner; therefore, the proceeding against the petitioner cannot be quashed, and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. From perusal of the FIR lodged by the complainant, it transpires that there is an allegation against the petitioner and co-accused Dinesh Pratap Singh that they proposed the house of the petitioner for sale to the complainant and got an agreement executed on 26.04.2024 and obtained the huge advance amount through bank transaction. The fact of the mortgage of the subject house with AU Bank, Raipur, was suppressed by the accused persons and after the completion of three months, the accused persons prepared another agreement without the consent of the complainant. The complainant further came to know that the subject house is not mutated in the name of the petitioner, yet he executed the agreement to sell the subject house and obtained a huge amount of Rs. 40 lakhs from the complainant. From the statement of the complainant as well as other material available in the charge-sheet, there is prima facie sufficient evidence available against the petitioner to proceed with the case against him. 5 8. In the matter of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in AIR Online 2021 SC 192, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 23 held as under :- “23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under: (i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; (ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; (iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; (iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). (v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; (vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; (vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; (viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; 6 (ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; (x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;” 9. 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 merits. 10. Considering the allegation made against the petitioner in the FIR, charge- sheet and the nature of the offence. It needs evidence to test the genuineness of the allegation made by the complainant; however, at this stage, it cannot be said that the allegation made by the complainant against the petitioner accused is false, or that it does not constitute any offence against the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the petition to quash the criminal proceeding, charge-sheet or order dated 06.12.2025 against the petitioner. The present petition lacks merit, liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok