1 CGHC010253932026 2026:CGHC:28082-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1755 of 2026 Jugal Kishor Sahu S/o Dhanurjai Sahu Aged About 46 Years Resident Of Kundbutla, P/s Bangomuda, District- Balanggir (or) Current Address - C-18, Sejbahar, P/s Bhajgahan, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station - Champa District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 2 - (Complainant) Ishak Masih S/o Late Gyan Das Masih Aged About 67 Years R/o Beldarpara Champa P/s Champa District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shailendra Dubey, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rohan, Advocate For State/ Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 08.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Shailendra Dubey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rohan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. The present petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs : “I. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under section 528 of BNSS 2023 filed by the petitioners II. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash the FIR bearing No. 354/2024 dated 28.08.2024, registered Against present petitioner at Police Station Champa, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) and charge-sheet bearing 300/2024, and all consequential proceedings arising No. in criminal case No. 1032/2024 there from, in the interest of justice; III. That, Grant any other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper, and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has filed a written complaint at Police Station, Champa, District – Janjgir-Champa against the petitioner on 28.08.2024, alleging therein that the petitioner, being acquainted with the complainant, represented that he had influence in the Ministry and could secure a Government job for the complainant's son, who had applied for the post of Patwari. On such representation, the complainant allegedly paid a total sum of ₹5,00,000 to the petitioner, comprising 2,50,000 in cash in January, 2019 and 2,50,000 ₹ ₹ through RTGS/Cheque in July, 2019. It is alleged that after the complainant's son failed to secure the appointment, the petitioner 3 refunded only 68,000 and dishonestly retained the balance ₹ amount of 4,32,000. Based on the aforesaid,written complainat, ₹ an FIR bearing Crime No. 0354/2024 has been registered against the petitioner and after completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet under Section 420 IPC against the petitioner. The petitioner was granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 04.10.2024 passed in MCRC No. 6868/2024 and the criminal case is presently pending before the Trial Court at the stage of arguments on framing of charge. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations contained in the FIR, even if accepted in their entirety, disclose a purely civil dispute arising out of a friendly loan transaction and do not constitute the offence of cheating. It is contended that the petitioner had borrowed 2,50,000 from the complainant in the ₹ year 2019 due to the serious illness of his wife and children, and he had already repaid 68,000 through banking channels. The ₹ dispute pertains only to the repayment of the remaining amount and has been deliberately given a criminal colour by concocting a false story regarding securing a Government job after an unexplained delay of nearly five years. It is further submitted that there is no material to establish dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner at the inception of the transaction, which is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 420 IPC. Learned counsel submits that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law and, 4 therefore, the FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the FIR, statements of witnesses recorded during investigation and the material collected by the Investigating Agency disclose a prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. It is submitted that the complainant has specifically alleged that the petitioner induced him to part with ₹5,00,000 on the false representation that he possessed influence in the Ministry and could secure a Government job for the complainant's son and such representation, the complainant allegedly paid a total sum of ₹5,00,000 to the petitioner, comprising 2,50,000 in cash in January, 2019 and 2,50,000 ₹ ₹ through RTGS/Cheque in July, 2019. It is further submitted that the petitioner refunded only a part of the amount, thereby lending support to the prosecution case. He further submits that after due investigation a charge-sheet has already been filed and the matter is pending before the Trial Court at the stage of consideration of charge. At this stage, the Court is not required to appreciate the defence of the accused or conduct a mini trial while exercising its inherent jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The scope of interference under the inherent jurisdiction of the 5 High Court is well settled. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court illustratively enumerated the categories of cases wherein the extraordinary power to quash criminal proceedings may be exercised. The Court simultaneously cautioned that such power is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in the rarest of rare cases. The present case does not fall within any of the categories formulated in Bhajan Lal (supra) warranting interference. 8. Likewise, in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that while exercising jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings, the High Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or evaluate the correctness of the allegations. If the allegations in the First Information Report, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court should ordinarily refrain from stalling the prosecution. The Court further held that disputed questions of fact and the defence of the accused are matters to be considered during trial and not at the stage of quashing. 9. Very 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 further held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS), the High Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of 6 fact or evaluate the evidentiary worth of the material collected during investigation. The Court reaffirmed the test laid down in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor and observed that criminal proceedings can be quashed at the threshold only when the material relied upon by the accused is of sterling and impeccable quality, completely demolishes the prosecution case, remains incapable of being refuted by the prosecution, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. Unless all these parameters are cumulatively satisfied, the High Court ought not to interfere in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, leaving the parties to establish their respective cases before the trial Court in accordance with law. 10. In the present case, the complainant has specifically alleged that the petitioner induced him to part with 5,00,000 by representing ₹ that he would secure a Government job for the complainant's son on account of his alleged influence in the Ministry and on such representation, the complainant allegedly paid a total sum of ₹5,00,000 to the petitioner, comprising 2,50,000 in cash in ₹ January, 2019 and 2,50,000 through RTGS/Cheque in July, ₹ 2019. The investigation culminated in filing of a charge-sheet after collecting material in support of the allegations. Whether the transaction was, as alleged by the petitioner, merely a friendly loan or whether the amount was paid pursuant to fraudulent inducement are disputed questions of fact which can be adjudicated only upon appreciation of evidence during trial. The 7 defence taken by the petitioner cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 11. In the case at hand, the allegations contained in the FIR, read together with the material collected during investigation, prima facie disclose the ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC. The defence projected by the petitioner that the transaction was merely a friendly loan is a matter to be established during trial. At this stage, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of the process of law or fall within any of the categories enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra) warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction. 12. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that any observation made herein is confined to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not influence the Trial Court while considering the matter on merits, including at the stage of framing of charge or during trial. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra