1 2026:CGHC:13612-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 799 of 2026 Vikas Thakur S/o Swaroop Singh Thakur Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Baijalpur, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Navagarh District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Seema Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 23.03.2026 1. Heard Ms. Seema Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Government Advocate for respondent / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “i. Quash the charges framed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara in MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.03.25 11:35:03 +0530 2 Criminal Case arising out of Crime No.66/2022 dated 02.04.2022 at Police Station Navagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.) (Annexure P-2); ii. Quash the charge sheet filed by the police (Annexure P-4) and the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the said Crime No.66/2022 pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate; iii. Grant any other relief or pass any other order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the basis of a written complaint, FIR bearing Crime No. 66/2022 was registered at Police Station- Navagarh on 02.04.2022 for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 384, 345 and 120-B of the IPC in relation to a tractor transaction financed through Axis Bank in the year 2016. It is alleged that the complainant’s father had purchased a tractor on 18.04.2016 from Rajak Tractor Agency under a loan arrangement with Axis Bank, and that in July 2017, the present applicant purportedly visited the complainant’s residence by falsely representing himself to be an employee of Axis Bank, demanded outstanding installments, and thereafter dishonestly took away the tractor along with its trolley. The prosecution seeks to attribute criminal intent to the applicant on the basis of such alleged impersonation and removal of the vehicle, treating the same as acts of cheating, criminal breach of trust, extortion and conspiracy. The investigation thereafter 3 culminated in filing of the charge-sheet against the petitioner, alleging his involvement in the aforesaid offences. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 66/2022 is vitiated by an inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly five years from the alleged incident of July 2017, which by itself renders the prosecution story doubtful, concocted and an afterthought, lacking any bona fide justification. It is further contended that the foundational allegation that the petitioner impersonated an employee of Axis Bank and forcibly took away the tractor is patently false and stands disproved from the record, as the petitioner was admittedly employed with Anurag Agency during the relevant period, duly supported by documentary evidence, thereby ruling out any connection with the bank. Learned counsel submits that the prosecution version is inherently improbable, inasmuch as the alleged tractor was neither recovered from the possession nor at the instance of the petitioner, but was shown to be seized from in front of the police station itself, which demolishes the very allegation of possession or wrongful taking by the petitioner. It is further argued that despite the complainant’s own assertion that he came to know about the alleged impersonation upon receiving notice from the bank, no complaint was lodged for several years thereafter, clearly indicating mala fide intent and afterthought. Without prejudice, it is submitted that even if the entire allegations are taken at their face value, the dispute pertains purely to non- 4 payment of loan installments relating to a financed tractor, giving rise at best to a civil liability, and does not satisfy the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 409, 420, 384 or 120-B IPC, as there is neither any dishonest intention at inception nor any wrongful gain or loss attributable to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet is bereft of any material, documentary or oral evidence establishing that the petitioner ever represented himself as a bank employee or had any nexus with Axis Bank, and no material has been collected to show any financial benefit accrued to him. The prosecution case is thus riddled with contradictions and improbabilities, including the seizure memo itself, which contradicts the prosecution’s own case. Learned counsel submits that the learned Trial Court has mechanically framed charges without due application of mind and in absence of any prima facie material connecting the petitioner with the alleged offences. 5. It is further contended that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with Ayashar Tractor Dealer or Rajak Tractor Agency, Bemetara, and was merely discharging his duties as an employee of Anurag Agency, and therefore the attempt to implicate him is wholly baseless. In these circumstances, it is urged that the continuation of the criminal proceedings is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, as the allegations are inherently improbable, do not disclose any offence, and the case squarely falls within the settled parameters for quashing, warranting interference under 5 Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. 6. Learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the learned Trial Court has already framed charges against the petitioner after due consideration of the material available on record, which prima facie discloses the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences. It is contended that at the stage of framing of charge, a detailed appreciation of evidence is neither warranted nor permissible, and only a prima facie case is required to be seen. Learned State counsel further submits that the allegations in the FIR, supported by the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation, clearly indicate that the petitioner had represented himself as an employee of Axis Bank and had taken away the tractor on the pretext of recovery of dues, thereby attracting the ingredients of the offences alleged. It is argued that the issues raised by the petitioner pertain to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings for quashing, and are matters to be tested during trial upon appreciation of evidence. It is thus submitted that in view of the charges already having been framed and sufficient material being available on record, the present petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 8. Upon due consideration of the submissions advanced and the 6 material placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that no case for interference is made out at this stage. It is trite that the jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and only in cases where the allegations do not disclose any offence or are patently absurd. In the present case, the trial Court has already framed charges against the petitioner upon consideration of the material collected during investigation, which prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offences. The defence raised by the petitioner involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. At this juncture, this Court does not find any sufficient ground to quash the proceeding. 9. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet