1 2026:CGHC:5243-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 320 of 2024 1 - Kishan Lal Tolani S/o Tola Ram Tolani Aged About 69 Years Proprietor M/s Bhawna Traders, Vyapar Vihar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) , R/o House No. - 455, Ward No. 38, Hemunagar, Police Station Torwa, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.),...(Accused Persons) 2 - Smt. Meera Torani W/o Kishan Lal Tolani Aged About 64 Years Proprietor M/s Radha Swami Foods, Vyapar Vihar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), R/o House No. - 455, Ward No. 38, Hemunagar, Police Station Torwa, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Mayank Gupta S/o Moujiram Gupta Aged About 35 Years Propretor M/s Kundanlal Ratiram, R/o 4a, Navin Mandi Sthal, Manglore, Police Station Manglore, District Haridwar (Uttrakhand),...(Complainant) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bishnu Muni, Advocate For State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.01.30 18:26:35 +0530 2 For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Bishnu Muni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent / State and Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2. 2. Considering the fact that the matter pertains to the year 2024, this Court proceeds to hear finally. 3. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and kindly be pleased to quash the FIR bearing Crime No. 281/2021 registered by Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur (C.G.) against thepetitioners for the offence under section 420, 34 of Indian Penal Code, as well as the criminal proceeding pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Bilaspur (C.G.) bearing Criminal Case No.6177/2023, in the interest of justice.” 4. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, Mayank Gupta, proprietor of M/s Kundanlal Ratiram and Kumar Trading 3 Company, Navin Mandi, Manglore, District Haridwar (Uttarakhand), alleged that in October 2021 petitioner No.1, Kishan Lal Tolani, approached him claiming to be a commission agent and assured him that he would sell jaggery at higher rates in Bilaspur and remit the sale proceeds after deducting commission. Relying on this assurance, the complainant dispatched four truckloads of jaggery between 07.11.2021 and 19.11.2021 to M/s Bhawna Traders and M/s Radhaswami Foods, Bilaspur, with a total value of Rs. 37,61,351/-. The goods were duly received by the said firms, but no payment was made. Subsequently, the complainant discovered that petitioner No.1 and his wife were themselves the proprietors of M/s Bhawna Traders and M/s Radhaswami Foods. On demanding payment, the petitioners allegedly abused and threatened the complainant and refused to pay the amount. On the basis of the complaint, FIR No. 281/2021 was registered at Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur (C.G.) under Sections 420 and 34 IPC. The matter is under investigation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen who has been falsely implicated in the present case by respondent No. 2 with mala fide intentions and ulterior motives. It is urged that the FIR is arbitrary, illegal, and an abuse of the process of law, as it arises out of a purely commercial transaction. The dispute pertains to non-payment/settlement of sale proceeds of jaggery, for which a mutual settlement dated 4 28.11.2021 was already arrived at. The FIR was lodged belatedly, after one month, with mala fide intention to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute. The essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC, particularly dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction, are completely absent. At best, the allegations disclose a breach of contract or accounting dispute. The petitioners never visited Haridwar, and the contrary allegation is false, as supported by medical and documentary evidence. The present case is squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajib Ranjan v. Vijay Kumar and Binod Kumar v. State of Bihar, wherein criminal proceedings were quashed in matters arising out of civil/business disputes involving non-payment of dues. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings is an abuse of process of law and the FIR deserves to be quashed.. 6. It is also argued that continuation of the criminal proceedings in the present circumstances would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law and would result in grave miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel places reliance on the settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC 636, and Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736, wherein it has been consistently held that when the allegations in the FIR, even if accepted in their entirety, disclose only a civil dispute and do not constitute a criminal offence, the FIR is liable to be quashed in exercise of 5 inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. It is thus prayed that the impugned FIR registered as Crime No. 281/2021 under Section 420, 34 of IPC along with all consequential proceedings, be quashed to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. 7. Learned State counsel would submit that considering the material available on record, it cannot be held that no prima facie case against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of the IPC is made out. He would further submit that jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) is extremely limited as FIR cannot be quashed particularly when there is sufficient material available on record. 8. On a pointed query being made to the learned State counsel as to whether the investigation of the case has been concluded or not, he states that the same is pending till date. 9. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2/ complainant would submit that the present petition for quashment, is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. The FIR and material on record clearly disclose a prima facie offence of cheating. The petitioners induced the respondent No.2 to supply jaggery worth ₹37,61,351/- by falsely representing petitioner No.1 as a commission agent, while concealing the fact that he and his wife were the owners of the purchasing firms. Such false representation at the inception establishes dishonest intention. He further submit that the case is 6 not one of mere non-payment but of deliberate deception and fraudulent inducement. Witness statements and other materials support the allegations, charges have already been framed, and the case is fixed for prosecution evidence. At this stage, disputed questions of fact cannot be examined in a quashment petition. Hence, no ground for interference is made out and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with this petition. 11. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down the principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first information report and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 12. In Manoj Kumar Sharma and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2016) 9 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed that High Courts have the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, including those related to non-compoundable offenses, to prevent the abuse of court process and to serve the ends of justice, particularly when the allegations are absurd, inherently improbable, or when there is evidence of malicious intent or the dispute is essentially private and amicable. 7 13. In the matter of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673, the Supreme Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. It was held as under: “12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.” (emphasis supplied) 14. Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), the Supreme Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 626, observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty & 8 Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it was again held that where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be quashed, by exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 15. Reverting to the facts of the present case and having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, this Court finds that the allegations made in the impugned FIR dated bearing Crime No. 281/2021 do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case of the prosecution, even if taken at its face value, reveals that the dispute arises out of a business transaction relating to supply and sale of jaggery. Non-payment of sale proceeds, by itself, gives rise to a civil liability and does not constitute a criminal offence. There is no material to show that the petitioners had dishonest or fraudulent intention at the inception of the transaction, which is a mandatory ingredient for an offence under Section 420 IPC. It is further observed that the settlement/claim adjustment was arrived at between the parties on 28.11.2021, prior to registration of the FIR, indicating acknowledgment of a business dispute and negating criminal intent. The FIR was lodged after considerable delay, i.e., more than one month after the alleged settlement, suggesting an afterthought and misuse of criminal law to pressurize the 9 petitioners. Continuation of criminal proceedings in the present facts would result in harassment of the petitioners and unnecessary interference in a commercial transaction. 16. It is also significant to note that, though the FIR was registered in December 2021, the charge-sheet has not been filed till date, despite lapse of a considerable period of time. Such inaction on the part of the investigating agency reinforces the inference that there is no material against the petitioner to sustain the allegations. The unexplained delay in investigation, coupled with the absence of concrete evidence, clearly indicates that the FIR was registered in a mechanical manner without application of mind and without conducting any preliminary verification of the complaint. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhajan lal (Supra), G. Sagar Suri (Supra), and Indian Oil Corporation (supra), has categorically held that where the allegations in an FIR do not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and are essentially of a civil nature, continuation of such proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law and should be quashed. Applying these settled principles to the present facts, this Court finds that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, in the absence of any charge-sheet even after four years, would serve no useful purpose and would result only in harassment and miscarriage of justice. 10 18. In view of the detailed discussion, and for the reasons recorded in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR do not constitute any cognizable offence and that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the present petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. deserves to be and is hereby allowed. 19. Consequently, the FIR bearing Crime No. 281/2021, registered at Police Station- Tarbahar, Dist- Bilaspur for the alleged offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed and set aside. It is further directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid FIR. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika