1 2026:CGHC:22525-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1355 of 2026 Manju Patle D/o Shri Vyasnarayan Patle Aged About 35 Years R/o Bhadra, Police Station Pamgarh District- Janjgir- Champa (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Superintendent Of Police Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Station House Officer, Police Station Pusaur Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Vishnu Charan Kurrey S/o Late Hansram Kurrey Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Surri, Police Station Pusour, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kashish Saluja, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13.05.2026 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.05.14 10:35:10 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Kashish Saluja, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR dated 17.12.2024 registered at Police Station Pusaur, District Raigarh (C.G.) - quash the entire charge sheet dated 12.04.2025, bearing No. 57/2025, filed against the petitioner in crime No. 295/2024 for the offence punishable U/s 420 of the IPC before the JMFC, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.). ANNEXURE- P/1. 2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order of taking cognizance dated 20.05.2025, ANNEXURE P/2 Criminal Case No. 526/2025, filed against the petitioner in crime No. 295/2024 for the offence punishable U/s 420 of the IPC before the JMFC, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.). 3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order framing charges dated 14.10.2025 (ANNEXURE P/3) and all proceedings arising out of the said FIR pending before the JMFC, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.), Criminal Case No. 526/2025. 4. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioners.” 3. The brief prosecution story, in nutshell, is that the petitioner, a 3 government employee working as a staff nurse, was alleged to have taken money from certain persons on the pretext of securing government employment for them. Initially, an FIR bearing Crime No. 258/2024 was registered at Police Station Tarbahar at the instance of Kiran Baghel, alleging that the petitioner, namely Manju Patle, had accepted money on the assurance of arranging a government job for her uncle. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the competent Court. Subsequently, another FIR bearing Crime No. 295/2024 came to be registered on 17.12.2024 at Police Station Pusour at the instance of another complainant, who is also related to the earlier informant, alleging that on the representation made through Kiran Baghel that the petitioner had contacts in the Ministry and could secure a government job, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was transferred to the petitioner on 24.11.2023. On the basis of the said complaint, offence under Section 420 of the IPC was registered and investigation was set in motion. According to the prosecution, the petitioner dishonestly induced the complainant to part with money on the false promise of procuring government employment, thereby committing the alleged offence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner, namely Manju Patle, are false, fabricated and have been made with a mala fide intention to harass her. It is contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and no offence, much less an offence under Section 4 420 of the IPC, is made out from the allegations contained in the FIR. Learned counsel submits that the true facts have been deliberately suppressed by the complainant and that the petitioner and Kiran Baghel were colleagues working as staff nurses, and the transaction in question was merely a friendly financial arrangement/loan between them, wherein money was advanced to the petitioner through relatives of said Kiran Baghel, including her uncles, and at no point of time was any promise or inducement made for securing a government job. It is further submitted that the dispute, if any, is purely civil in nature arising out of a monetary transaction, but has been given a criminal colour with ulterior motive. Learned counsel would further contend that when the same alleged transaction was already the subject matter of an earlier FIR registered at Police Station Tarbahar, the subsequent FIR registered at Police Station Pusour by another relative of the complainant on identical allegations amounts to impermissible multiplicity of proceedings and abuse of process of law. It is argued that the second FIR has been maliciously lodged only after the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in the earlier case, with a view to pressurize and victimize her. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a respectable government employee under NHM and the pendency of false criminal proceedings has caused serious mental agony, social stigma and prejudice to her service career. Relying upon the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335, it is submitted 5 that even if the allegations in the FIR and charge-sheet are taken at their face value, no criminal offence is made out and the continuation of proceedings would amount to clear abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the FIR, charge-sheet and the criminal case pending before the learned JMFC, Raigarh deserve to be quashed. 5. Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the petition and submits that the present case does not warrant exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashment at this stage, particularly when the criminal proceedings have already progressed substantially and the learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the offence and framed charges against the petitioner, namely Manju Patle. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the charge-sheet and the material collected during investigation clearly reveals that specific allegations have been levelled by the complainant that the petitioner induced him to part with a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the assurance of securing a government job, and acting upon such representation, the amount was transferred to the petitioner. Learned State counsel submits that statements of the complainant and witnesses recorded during investigation prima facie support the prosecution case and disclose ingredients of the offence of cheating. It is contended that the defence raised by the petitioner that the amount was a friendly loan transaction and that the FIR is a result of personal dispute are all disputed questions of fact which cannot be examined in proceedings under inherent 6 jurisdiction. It is further argued that merely because an earlier FIR was registered in relation to another complainant would not by itself render the subsequent FIR illegal, as each victim alleging separate inducement and payment constitutes an independent cause of action requiring adjudication on evidence. It is therefore submitted that sufficient material exists in the charge-sheet to proceed against the petitioner and no case for quashing the FIR or consequential proceedings is made out. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon due consideration of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations made against the petitioner prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offence and the material collected during investigation cannot be said to be wholly insufficient for proceeding against her. The defence raised by the petitioner that the transaction was a friendly loan, or that the second FIR is a counterblast to the earlier proceedings, involves disputed questions of fact which require appreciation of evidence and cannot be adjudicated in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. More particularly, when the learned trial Court has already taken cognizance and framed charges, this Court is not inclined to embark upon a detailed examination of the factual defence of the petitioner at this stage. It cannot be said that the allegations are 7 so absurd or inherently improbable as to warrant quashing of the proceedings at the threshold. 8. Accordingly, no case is made out for interference and the present petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet