1 CGHC010257822026 2026:CGHC:28120-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1764 of 2026 Priya Deshmukh W/o Prashant Deshmukh, Aged About 36 Years R/o New Aadarsh Nagar, Padhmanabhpur, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Padhmanabhpur, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Payal D/o Shri Naresh Brahamnkar, Aged About 29 Years R/o Quarter No. 8/ A, Street No.6 Sector 07 Bhilai, Bhilainagar, District Durg C.G. ... Respondent(s) (cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate 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. Himanshu Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate appearing for the State/ respondent. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.07.09 10:38:36 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has filed the present CrMP under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023, and prayed for the following reliefs:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash/ set aside: i. First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 175/2026 dated 18.03.2026 under Section 420, 467, 468, 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station- Padhmanabhpur, Dist- Durg, Chhattisgarh.” 3. The present petition arises out of the repeated registration of successive FIRs against the petitioner in respect of the same alleged job fraud transactions, despite the petitioner herself being the original victim and complainant. According to the petitioner, she was cheated of Rs. 1,66,80,000/- by Rajat Kumar Gupta, Amolaxmi Gupta and others on the false promise of securing a government job and, after her complaint, FIR No. 221/2025 was registered at Police Station Padmanabhpur, District Durg. Thereafter, instead of taking action against the alleged perpetrators, the police successively registered FIR Nos. 286/2025, 143/2026 and 175/2026 against the petitioner in relation to the same series of transactions by making different persons as complainants. The petitioner was also implicated in FIR No. 718/2025 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, in which she was granted anticipatory bail by this Hon'ble Court, and she was similarly granted anticipatory bail in FIR No. 286/2025. It is the petitioner's case that all the impugned FIRs arise out of the same transaction relating to alleged promises of government employment and have been registered during the pendency of the earlier FIRs and 3 investigations, without filing of any charge-sheet in the subsequent cases. Aggrieved by the repeated registration of multiple FIRs on the same cause of action and alleging abuse of the criminal process by the police authorities, the petitioner has preferred the present petition seeking appropriate relief from this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent lady who has been falsely implicated in the impugned FIRs despite being the victim of the very fraud in question. The petitioner herself was induced to part with an amount of Rs. 1,66,80,000/- by Rajat Kumar Gupta, Amolaxmi Gupta and others on the false promise of securing a government job and, when the local police failed to register her complaint, she was constrained to approach the Superintendent of Police, District Durg, pursuant to which FIR No. 221/2025 came to be registered against the alleged fraudsters. However, instead of conducting a fair and impartial investigation, the respondent police authorities subsequently arrayed the petitioner as an accused in successive FIRs arising out of the same set of transactions. It is further submitted that one of the principal complainants, namely Monisha Singh, is herself an accused in another criminal case involving similar allegations of job fraud, thereby casting serious doubt on the credibility of the prosecution story. The petitioner has not derived any wrongful gain from the alleged transactions, rather, she herself has suffered substantial financial loss and has been cheated of Rs.1,66,80,000/-. In the absence of any material disclosing the essential ingredients of the alleged offences against the petitioner, the continuation of the criminal proceedings amounts to a gross abuse of 4 the process of law. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned FIRs deserve to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to such other reliefs as this Court may deem fit in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents, would submit that the plea of false implication, the petitioner's claim that she is herself a victim of the alleged fraud, and the contention that the impugned FIRs constitute successive FIRs arising out of the same transaction are all disputed questions of fact which require appreciation of evidence and can be effectively adjudicated only after completion of investigation. It is a settled principle of law that where the FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the investigating agency is duty-bound to conduct a fair and complete investigation and the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, ought not to stifle a legitimate prosecution at its inception. Thus, at this stage, no interference is warranted in view of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021 (M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others) and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR and document annexed with the petition. 7. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge- sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of 5 cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS/482 of the Cr.P.C. 8. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.) is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of B.N.S.S.), only has to consider whether or not the allegations of FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. Further, while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (now 528 of B.N.S.S.) , final conclusions are as under:- “i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevantprovisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; 6 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 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; 7 xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur 8 (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in 9 passing the order of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps” either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/ disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order. xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of “no coercive steps to be adopted” within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by “no coercive steps to be adopted” as the term “no coercive steps to be adopted” can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied.” 9. Very recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal 10 No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025), while reiterating the settled principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings, has once again emphasized that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised with great caution, circumspection and only in exceptional circumstances. 10. From a perusal of the impugned FIR (Annexure-P/1), it is evident that the complainant has made specific, detailed and categorical allegations against the petitioner and co-accused Rajat Kumar Gupta that they induced the complainant to part with a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on the false assurance of securing her appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer/Sub-Engineer in the CSPDCL. The FIR discloses that the petitioner represented herself to be a government employee having close connections with influential persons in the State Government and projected the co-accused Rajat Kumar Gupta as a person working in the Ministry and having influence in the Chief Minister's Office and the Professional Examination Board, thereby gaining the confidence of the complainant and her family. It is further alleged that, acting on such representations, the complainant initially paid Rs.3,00,000/- in cash and thereafter Rs.7,00,000/- at the petitioner's residence, whereafter the accused repeatedly assured the complainant that her appointment would be secured, furnished forged appointment/joining letters, and on several occasions called the complainant and her family to Raipur to reinforce such assurances. The FIR further states that despite repeated promises extending over a considerable period, neither was any government employment provided nor was the money refunded, and when the complainant demanded repayment, the accused 11 allegedly refused to return the amount and threatened that no action could be taken against them owing to their alleged influence in the police and the Ministry. Thus, the allegations contained in the impugned FIR, on their face, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences relating to cheating, forgery, use of forged documents and criminal conspiracy, warranting registration of the crime and investigation, and at this stage, the correctness or otherwise of the allegations is a matter to be examined during the course of investigation and trial and cannot be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings for quashing the FIR. 11. After having gone through the allegations made in the impugned FIR, it cannot be said that no offence prima facie is disclosed against the petitioner in the FIR as there is allegation of cheating, forgery and use of forged documents and in the light of judgment passed by the Apex Court in Neeharika Infrasturcture Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra), we do not find any good ground for interference as it cannot be said that no prima facie offence is disclosed. 12. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika