1 2026:CGHC:23121-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1385 of 2026 1 - Jai Kumar Dewangan (In Person) S/o. Homji Lal Dewangan Aged About 36 Years R/o. Village Sakarra, Tahsil Adbhar, P.S. Malkharouda, District- Sakti (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Dimple Dewangan W/o. Jai Kumar Dewangan Aged About 33 Years R/o. Village Sakarra, Tahsil Adbhar, P.S. Malkharouda, District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Suprintendent Of Police Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.) 3 - Station House Officer Police Station City Kotwali Mungeli District- Mungeli (C.G.) 4 - Aaryan Toppo S/o. Prabodh Toppo Aged About 19 Years R/o. C/o. Father Prabodh Toppo, Judge Family Court Address District And Session Court South Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate along with Mr. Jai Kumar Dewangan, Petitioner in Person For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. Advocate General. Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.05.18 11:36:59 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 15/05/2026 1. Heard Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate along with Mr. Jai Kumar Dewangan, Petitioner in Person. Also heard Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Addl. Advocate General, appearing for the Respondent/State. 2. Present is a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of FIR No. 322/2022 dated 28.05.2022 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as for quashing of the Final Report/Charge-sheet arising therefrom and Criminal Case No. 1861/2026 pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.), along with all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom, and prayed for the following reliefs:- “1. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under section528 of B.N.S. 2023 filed by the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 2. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the charge sheet dated 16.04.2026 and FIR bearing No. 322/2022 registered on dated 28.05.2022 at police station Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh filed under section 420, 34 of I.P.C. against the petitioners, in the interest of justice. 3 3. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased 3. to quash entire charge 16.04.2026 sheet dated Judicial learned before Magistrate First Class Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh under section 420, 34 of I.P.C. against the petitioners in the interest of justice. 4. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash entire criminal proceeding of Criminal case No. 14524/2026 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh against the petitioners, in the interest of justice. 5. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash cognizance dated 16.04.2026 taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Mungeli Chhattisgarh and also to quash entire proceeding of criminal case No. 1861/2026 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Mungeli, Mungeli Chhattisgarh, in the interest of District justice. 6. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly grant any other reliefs in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. That, the present case arises out of FIR No. 322/2022 dated 28.05.2022 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant alleged that petitioner No. 1 had friendly relations with him through his cousin brother Vishnu Dewangan, who 4 was working as peon in the office of the complainant’s father at Kawardha Court, and on that basis the petitioner No. 1 allegedly extended assistance in the medical treatment of the complainant’s mother at C.M.C. Vellore (Chennai), during which certain expenses were allegedly made through the ATM of Smt. Apara Toppo, State Bank of India, and subsequently on 28.08.2020 an amount of Rs. 6,96,936/- was allegedly withdrawn through ATM without authorization by some unknown person. On the basis of the said allegations, FIR was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, whereupon Criminal Case No. 1861/2026 is pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.), and being aggrieved by the initiation and continuation of the said criminal proceedings, the petitioners have preferred the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashment of FIR and all consequential proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR No. 322/2022 dated 28.05.2022 and the entire criminal proceedings arising therefrom are illegal, arbitrary and amount to abuse of the process of law. The allegations levelled in the FIR are vague, general and do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC, particularly with regard to any dishonest intention at the inception of the alleged transaction. The entire case arises out of admitted friendly relations and consensual financial dealings between the parties in connection with medical treatment and 5 other expenses of the complainant’s family, which, even if taken on its face value, does not disclose any criminal offence and at best constitutes a civil dispute, which has been given a criminal colour with mala fide intention. 5. It is further submitted that the FIR is highly delayed and suffers from unexplained laches, as the alleged transactions are stated to have occurred between 16.12.2016 to 19.08.2020, whereas the FIR has been registered only on 28.05.2022, which creates serious doubt on the prosecution story. It is also submitted that the complainant was a minor at the time of lodging of the FIR and the complaint has been made without proper understanding of facts and supporting material, apparently under influence of his parents. The investigation has been conducted in a mechanical manner without proper verification of documentary evidence showing consensual transactions between the parties. Therefore, continuation of such proceedings would be unjust and would result in serious prejudice to the petitioners, as the allegations do not make out any cognizable offence against them. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the impugned FIR No. 322/2022 has been registered on the basis of specific allegations disclosing commission of cognizable offences under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and during investigation sufficient material has been collected indicating the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged unauthorized transactions from the account of the complainant’s mother. It is further submitted that after due investigation, charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and Criminal Case 6 No. 1861/2026 is pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mungeli, and therefore, at this stage, no interference is warranted in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. It is also submitted that the grounds raised by the petitioners are purely factual in nature and relate to disputed questions of evidence, which cannot be adjudicated in quashing proceedings and are required to be examined during trial. Hence, it is prayed that the petition, being devoid of merit, be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 8. From perusal of the FIR, charge-sheet and submissions advanced by both sides, it appears that the allegations against the petitioners pertain to alleged unauthorized withdrawal and utilization of money from the bank account of the complainant’s mother during the period when the petitioners were admittedly in close acquaintance and regular contact with the complainant’s family in connection with medical treatment and other household affairs. The contentions raised by the petitioners regarding consensual financial transactions, delay in lodging of FIR, nature of relationship between the parties, absence of dishonest intention, and alleged false implication involve disputed questions of fact which require appreciation of evidence and examination of documents, statements and surrounding circumstances, which cannot be undertaken by this Court while exercising limited jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. At this stage, this Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial or enter into adjudication of factual disputes. 7 Since the investigation has culminated into filing of charge-sheet and prima facie material exists for proceeding with the matter before the learned trial Court, this Court is not inclined to exercise inherent jurisdiction for quashing of the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings. 9. 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 8 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; (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;” 10. In the present case, upon perusal of the FIR, charge-sheet and other material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations made against the petitioners prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offence and the investigation conducted by the concerned police authorities has culminated into filing of charge-sheet before the competent Court. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners with regard to consensual 9 financial transactions, friendly relationship between the parties, delay in lodging of FIR and absence of dishonest intention are all disputed questions of fact which require appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and cannot be adjudicated in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the amount in question had been transferred by the private respondent in the account of the petitioners for purchase of vehicle and other expenses and the same had already been paid/utilized as per the instructions of the complainant’s family. He also tried to demonstrate from the bank statements and other documents that the transactions were carried out with consent and knowledge of the complainant’s parents. However, such defence sought to be raised by the petitioners pertains to factual aspects which can appropriately be examined only during the course of trial. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), has categorically held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023), the High Court should not interfere where the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence and the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry regarding reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR. It has further been held that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage and quashing of proceedings should be an exception rather than a rule. In the present case, since prima facie material is available against the petitioners and the charge-sheet has already been filed, this Court is not inclined to 10 interfere with the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings. 12. However, considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and in view of the fact that charges have not yet been framed by the learned trial Court, the petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all available objections and permissible pleas before the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage in accordance with law. 13. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being devoid of merits deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok