1 CGHC010255782026 2026:CGHC:27885-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1739 of 2026 1. Akash Singh S/o Samar Bahadur Singh Aged About 36 Years R/o Royal Park Colony, P.S. Gandhinagar, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 2. Smt. Shikha Singh W/o Akash Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o Royal Park Colony, P.S. Gandhinagar, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Station House Officer P.S. Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Vishal Gupta S/o Late Shyam Bihari Gupta Aged About 28 Years R/o Ketka Road, Near Electricity Office, Surajpur, P.S. Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.07.08 17:38:37 +0530 2 For Petitioners : Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 07.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 & 2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition by exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 and in exercise thereof call for the records (if necessary), admit the petition and further, to quash the FIR dated 05.04.2026 (Annexure P/1) registered at Police Station Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) bearing Crime No. 208 of 2026 for the offence punishable under Section 420, 506 and 34 of the IPC against the petitioners and/or pass such other orders in favour of the petitioner as this Hon’ble Court 3 may deem it fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 1 is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of immovable properties at Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), whereas petitioner No. 2 is merely the wife of petitioner No. 1 and has no role whatsoever in the alleged transaction. He further submitted that petitioner No. 1 came into contact with Rajendra Gupta @ Rajan Gupta, who is the maternal uncle (Mausa) of respondent No. 3/complainant and is engaged in the business of land brokerage. During negotiations for purchase of a plot situated at Royal Park, Ambikapur, petitioner No. 1 handed over a signed cheque of Rs.9,00,000/- to Rajendra Gupta merely as a security for the proposed land transaction. The said cheque was never issued in favour of the complainant nor towards any alleged investment in share market trading. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that taking undue advantage of the fact that petitioner No. 1 was implicated in FIR No. 156/2025 registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, Ambikapur, relating to an alleged share market investment, the complainant, in connivance with Rajendra Gupta, has falsely implicated the petitioners in the present case. It is submitted that though the bail application of petitioner No. 1 was rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 5289 of 2025 vide order dated 09.07.2025, he was subsequently enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10.12.2025 passed in SLP 4 (Crl.) No. 15531 of 2025. He further submitted that the allegation in the FIR that the petitioners received Rs.9,00,000/- in cash from the complainant at Surajpur on 22.03.2024 for investment in share trading is wholly false. On the alleged date of the incident, the petitioners were at Indore (M.P.) and were not present at Surajpur. The petitioners have never induced the complainant to invest any amount nor had any financial dealings with him. Petitioner No. 2 has been unnecessarily implicated despite having no connection with the alleged transaction. 5. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned FIR has been lodged after an unexplained delay of nearly two years and is nothing but an attempt to convert a dispute arising out of a security cheque into a criminal prosecution. Even otherwise, if the cheque had been issued towards any alleged liability, the complainant had an efficacious remedy under the Negotiable Instruments Act, which has deliberately not been invoked. He also contended that the allegations made in the impugned FIR, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners. The prosecution is manifestly mala fide and has been initiated only to harass the petitioners by giving a criminal colour to a purely civil dispute. Continuation of the impugned proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 6. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners respectfully submits that the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed by this Court. 5 7. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the impugned FIR discloses specific and categorical allegations against both the petitioners. It is contended that the complainant has specifically alleged that the petitioners induced him to invest in share market trading by assuring him of assured and substantial returns, received a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- in cash from him, issued a cheque towards the said amount, failed to return the money despite repeated demands and thereafter threatened him with dire consequences, including implicating him in a false criminal case and causing his death. It is submitted that these allegations, if taken at their face value, clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 and 34 of the IPC. It is further submitted that the defence projected by the petitioners, namely that the cheque was issued only as a security for a proposed land transaction with Rajendra Gupta and that the petitioners were present at Indore on the date of the alleged incident, involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS'). It is, therefore, prayed that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 9. The legal position governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is well settled. The jurisdiction to quash an FIR is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised 6 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 7 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 be scuttled at the threshold except in exceptional circumstances. 12. 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. 13. A perusal of the impugned FIR reveals that respondent No.3/complainant alleged that he came in contact with petitioner No.1 through his maternal uncle, Rajendra Gupta, at Ambikapur. According to the FIR, petitioner No.1 represented himself to be engaged in share 8 market trading and, along with petitioner No.2, induced the complainant to invest money by assuring him of substantial returns and that there would be no risk of loss. It is further alleged that on 22.03.2024 at about 11:00 a.m., both the petitioners came to Surajpur where the complainant handed over a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- in cash to them near the Old Rest House for investment in the share market. The FIR further alleges that petitioner No.1 issued a cheque for Rs.9,00,000/- as security and assured the complainant that the amount would be doubled and returned within a few months. It is also alleged that despite repeated demands, the petitioners failed to return the amount and subsequently threatened the complainant with false implication in a criminal case and with death. On the basis of these allegations, the impugned FIR came to be registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 and 34 of the IPC. 14. Examining the allegations contained in the FIR in the light of the settled legal principles, this Court finds that the FIR contains specific assertions regarding inducement by the petitioners, delivery of Rs.9,00,000/- by the complainant, issuance of a cheque by petitioner No.1, failure to return the amount despite repeated demands and subsequent criminal intimidation. At this stage, the Court is required to proceed on the assumption that the allegations contained in the FIR are true and cannot examine their correctness or otherwise. The allegations, if accepted on their face value, prima facie disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged and, therefore, cannot be said to be so absurd or inherently improbable as to warrant interference at the 9 threshold. 15. The defence put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the cheque in question was issued merely as a security in connection with a proposed land transaction with Rajendra Gupta, that the complainant had no financial dealings with them and that the petitioners were present at Indore on the date of the alleged occurrence, are all matters which involve disputed questions of fact. Similarly, the plea that petitioner No.2 has been falsely implicated and had no role in the alleged transaction also requires appreciation of evidence. Such disputed factual issues cannot be adjudicated while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, as doing so would amount to conducting a mini trial, which is impermissible in law. 16. The submission of the petitioners that the dispute is purely civil in nature and that the complainant ought to have availed the remedy under the Negotiable Instruments Act also does not persuade this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction. The FIR does not merely allege non- payment of money or dishonour of a cheque; rather, it contains specific allegations that the complainant was induced to part with Rs.9,00,000/- on the promise of lucrative returns in share market trading and that after receiving the amount, the petitioners neither returned the money nor honoured their assurances and further extended threats when repayment was demanded. Whether these allegations are ultimately established is a matter of evidence, but at this stage they cannot be 10 brushed aside merely because the transaction may also give rise to a civil remedy. 17. This Court is of the considered opinion that the material relied upon by the petitioners, including their plea regarding the purpose of issuance of the cheque and their alleged presence at Indore on the date of the incident, cannot be said to be of such sterling and impeccable character as to completely demolish the prosecution case at the threshold. The rival versions require proper investigation and cannot be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. The allegations made in the FIR require a thorough investigation so that the truthfulness or otherwise of the accusations can be ascertained in accordance with law. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not fall within any of the exceptional categories warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, as illustratively carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika (supra) and reiterated in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra). The allegations contained in the impugned FIR, if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, prima facie disclose that the petitioners induced the complainant to invest in share market trading on the assurance of assured returns, received a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- from him, failed to repay the amount despite repeated demands and thereafter threatened him with false implication and dire consequences. The defence sought to be projected by the petitioners, 11 namely that the cheque was issued merely as a security for a proposed land transaction and that they were not present at Surajpur on the date of the alleged occurrence, involves disputed questions of fact requiring investigation and appreciation of evidence. Such issues cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. Consequently, this Court finds no ground to exercise its extraordinary inherent jurisdiction for quashing the impugned FIR or the consequential proceedings. 19. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein are confined only 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, strictly in accordance with law and uninfluenced by any observation made in this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan