1 2026:CGHC:1597-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 82 of 2026 1 - Upendra Chandrakar S/o Shri Pannalal Chandrakar, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Near Deepak Kiraya Bhandar, Ashwani Nagar, P.S. Purani Basti, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Purani Basti Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dikeshwar Sonkar S/o Mohanlal Sonkar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Khurmura, P.S. Amleshwar, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate. For State : Mr. N.K. Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. 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. The present CRMP under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 24-09-2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No.41060/2025 which is the order taking cognizance for the Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.01.15 12:30:09 +0530 2 offence under Section 420 of the IPC against the petitioner pursuant to the Charge Sheet No.249/2025 arising out of Crime No.3/2025 registered at Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC. 2. The petitioner has made following prayer in the present petition:- “i. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023 filed by the petitioner. ii. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the F.I.R. in crime no. 3/2025 registered as police station Purani Basti Raipur District Raipur on dated 03.01.2025 for the offence committed u/s 420 of I.P.C. iii. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly pleased to quash the entire charge sheet filed on dated 18.09.2025 before learned JMFC Raipur District Raipur (C.G.), (in Criminal Case No.41060/2025) for the offence committed under Section 420 of I.P.C. iv. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash / set- aside the cognizance taken by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) and also set aside / quash the proceeding in Criminal Case No. 41060/2025 dated 24.09.2025.” 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 03-01-2025 the complainant Dikeshwar Sonkar lodged a report against the petitioner 3 with the allegation that he entered with an agreement with accused to purchase the land of Khasra No.1011 admeasuring area 0.410 hectare and 403 admeasuring are 0.240 hectare situated at village Jamrav, Tahsil Patan, District Durg for total consideration of Rs.51,00,000/- and executed an agreement on 25-10-2021 and gave Rs.2,00,000/- as advance amount. He also paid Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- through two cheques and thus, he paid Rs.10,00,000/- out of total sale consideration. The sale deed was to be registered within 8 months. When the petitioner/accused not executed the sale deed the complainant demanded his money back, but he has not refunded it and assured that the land is of government leased land and it will take some time in obtaining permission for execution of sale deed. Thereafter, they cancelled the agreement and the petitioner gave two cheques of Rs.5,00,000/- each, but the same was dishonoured by the payee bank on the ground of insufficient fund in the bank account of the petitioner/accused and thus, he grabbed his Rs.10,00,000/-. The FIR has been registered against the petitioner and after investigation charge sheet has been filed for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC and then the learned trial Court has taken congnizance of the offence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire transaction is purely a civil transaction and with respect to agreement to sell of the land. In lieu of refund of the amount to the complainant the petitioner has handed over two cheques and when the cheques were dishonoured by the bank the complainant can very well prosecute the petitioner under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, however, 4 only to create pressure upon the petitioner/accused he lodged the report. The petitioner may also avail remedy of civil suit of specific performance of the contract, but he did not do so. With respect to the civil consequence the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC, therefore, the entire proceeding of criminal case as well as the charge sheet and the order taking congnizance may be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that from the very beginning the petitioner was of the intention to cheat the complainant and despite knowing the fact that the subject land was government land and without permission cannot be alienated he entered into agreement and obtained Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant and despite revocation of the agreement he has not refunded the amount of the complainant and his cheques have been dishonoured, thus, there are sufficient and overwhelming material available against the petitioner to prosecute him for the alleged offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC. Looking to the statement of the complainant as well as witnesses Tarun Sonkar and Ishwar Sonkar and the material available in the charge sheet, the proceeding against the petitioner cannot be quashed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. From perusal of the FIR as well as the statement of the complainant it clearly reveals that the agreement was executed between the petitioner and the complainant to sell 0.650 hectare of land 5 and Rs.10,00,000/- were paid by the complainant to the petitioner/accused through cash and cheques and when petitioner/accused failed to execute the sale deed and informed the complainant that it was government land and in obtaining NOC from the concerned department some time will take, they revoked the agreement by executing a revocation deed. Two cheques in lieu of refund of the advance amount was also given to the complainant amount Rs.5,00,000/- each and when the complainant deposited it in the bank account for its clearance the same was dishonoured for want of sufficient balance in the account. In the sale agreement dated 25-10- 2021 there was no mention about the fact that the subject land was government land which requires permission from the concerned department. Further, from the dishonour of the cheques with respect to refund of advance amount it clearly demonstrates that the petitioner/accused was having intention to not refund the amount to the complainant, yet he issued the cheques for the excess amount which was not available in his bank account. Thus, dishonest intention of the petitioner can be gathered from the evidence available in the charge sheet and the conduct of the petitioner/accused to proceed in the case and to take cognizance of the offence. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court 6 cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. The Supreme Court has emphasised that though the court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 9. In the instant case, from perusal of the FIR and charge-sheet, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. The present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC (Now Section 528 of the BNSS) to quash the impugned FIR, charge-sheet and criminal proceedings. Hence, no ground exists for quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet and criminal proceedings. Even otherwise, it is a settled position of law that while exercising powers under Section 482, CrPC, the High Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. What is required to be considered at that stage is the nature of accusations and allegations in the FIR and whether the averments/allegations in the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of the cognizable offence or not. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties, perusing the documents appended with the petition and also considering the contents of the FIR and the charge- sheet, we do not find any sufficient ground to quash the entire 7 proceeding of Criminal Case No.41060/2025 or the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioner in the matter. Consequently, the present petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil