1 2026:CGHC:26807-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1690 of 2026 Bipra Pati S/o Gobind Pati Aged About 46 Years R/o At/po Khuntpali Distirct Bargarh (Odisha) Pin No. 768028. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer P.S. Devendra Nagar Raipur District Raipur Commissionerate C.G. 2. Sarvesh Singh S/o Shir Raj Bahadur Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Pandritarai Near Shsiv Mandir Raipur Devendra Nagar District Raipur Commissionserate Raipur C.G. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Juhi Anguriya, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 01.07.2026 1. Heard Ms. Juhi Anguriya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.07.02 18:47:42 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR No.0111/2026 dated 03.06.2026 offence under Section 420 of the IPC registered by the Police Station Devendra Nagar, District Raipur Commissionerate, (Annexure P/1) in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bona fide businessman engaged in the business of garments under the name and style of "Sui Dhaga" at Bargarh, Odisha, and is earning his livelihood through lawful means. It is submitted that the petitioner was also using a digital gaming platform wherein he occasionally invested his own funds. She further submits that the complainant, being well acquainted with the petitioner and having knowledge of the nature of the digital gaming platform, voluntarily invested money of his own free will. The allegation in the FIR that the petitioner induced the complainant to invest a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- is specifically denied. According to the petitioner, the complainant initially transferred Rs.1,00,000/- and thereafter an additional sum of Rs.2,00,000/- through RTGS, making the total investment Rs.3,00,000/- only. It is contended that the allegation regarding payment of an additional sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash is false and has been deliberately introduced to inflate the claim. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the dispute 3 arose only when the complainant started demanding repayment of Rs.4,00,000/- instead of the actual amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. It is argued that the dispute is purely civil in nature arising out of a monetary transaction and does not disclose any dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner from the inception of the transaction. It is further submitted that despite financial constraints, the petitioner has been making sincere efforts to settle the dispute and has already repaid Rs.40,000/- to the complainant and is willing to repay the remaining amount. It is also contended that the complainant approached the Cyber Police Station, Raipur, pursuant to which an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- lying in the petitioner's bank account was withheld, thereby adversely affecting his business and livelihood. It is, therefore, submitted that the criminal proceedings have been initiated only to pressurize the petitioner in what is essentially a civil dispute, and hence the FIR deserves to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the FIR discloses specific allegations that the petitioner induced the complainant to part with a substantial amount of money on the assurance of returns through a digital gaming platform and thereafter failed to return the amount. It is submitted that whether the complainant invested Rs.3,00,000/- or Rs.4,00,000/-, whether such investment was voluntary, and whether the petitioner had dishonest intention from the very inception are all disputed questions of fact which can only be examined during investigation. It is further submitted that merely because the dispute also involves monetary transactions or the 4 petitioner claims to have made part payment, the same by itself does not render the criminal proceedings liable to be quashed when the allegations prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. It is, therefore, prayed that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 7. A perusal of the impugned FIR reveals that the complainant has alleged that the petitioner induced him to invest money on the assurance of earning returns through a digital gaming platform and thereafter failed to return the amount invested. It is further alleged that despite repeated demands, the amount was not repaid, leading to registration of the present FIR for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. The investigation is presently in progress. 8. The legal position governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) is well settled. The jurisdiction to quash an FIR is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised sparingly, with great circumspection and only in exceptional cases. Ordinarily, the High Court should not interfere with the investigation of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations contained in the FIR, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie disclose the commission of any offence or continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law, the Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction. 5 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 10. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 of the BNSS), the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations, appreciate the evidence or conduct a mini trial. The Court is only required to examine whether the allegations contained in the FIR, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court further observed that investigation into cognizable offences should ordinarily be permitted to proceed unhindered and criminal proceedings should not 6 be scuttled at the threshold except in exceptional circumstances. 11. Recently, in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No.3831 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid principles and held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, the High Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact or evaluate the evidentiary value of the material collected during investigation. It was further held that criminal proceedings can be quashed only where the material relied upon by the accused is of sterling and impeccable quality, completely demolishes the prosecution case and continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law. 12. Examining the facts of the present case in the light of the aforesaid principles, the principal defence of the petitioner is that the complainant voluntarily invested only Rs.3,00,000/- and that the allegation regarding payment of an additional Rs.1,00,000/- in cash is false. The petitioner has also contended that the dispute is purely civil in nature and that he has already repaid part of the amount. These submissions constitute the defence of the petitioner and involve disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence. Whether the complainant was induced to invest, the actual amount invested, the nature of the representations made by the petitioner and whether the petitioner possessed dishonest intention from the inception of the transaction are all matters which can only be examined during 7 investigation and, if necessary, during trial. 13. Merely because the transaction has a monetary or civil flavour or because the petitioner claims to have repaid part of the amount would not, by itself, justify quashing of the impugned FIR when the allegations contained therein prima facie disclose the ingredients of the offence alleged. At this stage, this Court is only required to examine whether the allegations contained in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and not to evaluate the correctness or otherwise of the allegations or record findings on disputed questions of fact. 14. Having regard to the allegations contained in the impugned FIR and the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not fall within any of the exceptional categories illustratively carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure (supra) and reiterated in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra), warranting exercise of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. The allegations levelled against the petitioner cannot, at this stage, be characterised as inherently improbable, manifestly absurd or so patently frivolous that no prudent person could arrive at a prima facie conclusion regarding the commission of the alleged offence. Rather, the issues sought to be raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact which are required to be examined during the course of investigation in accordance with law. 15. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case 8 is made out for quashing the impugned FIR. The petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. 16. It is, however, made clear that the observations recorded herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The Investigating Agency shall proceed with the investigation independently and strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made in this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan