CGHC010244842024 2026:CGHC:27906-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1998 of 2024 Sandeep Jain Bangani S/o Ramlal Jain Bangani Aged About 43 Years R/o Gaya Nagar, Ward No. 03, Street No. 01, Near House Of Narendra Banjare, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 -State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Durg Kotwali, District Durg,... (Chhattisgarh) 2 -Smt. Yogeshwari Rajput W/o Late Rajendra Singh Rajput Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 32, Near Digamber Jain Mandir, Baniyapara, Durg, Tahsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh,...(Complainant) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Anmol Sharma, Advocate through virtual mode For Respondent/State : Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, GA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per R amesh Sinha, Chief Justice 07.07.2026 Heard Shri Anmol Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner through virtual mode. Also heard Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, learned GA appearing for the respondent/State. None appears for respondent-2 though served. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition with the following prayer:- Crmp 1998 of 2024 2 “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Chargesheet and consequential Criminal Case bearing number RCC/8282/2020 pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District-Durg arising out of the Crime No.160/2020 registered at Police Station – Durg Kotwali, District-Durg against the present petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and entire consequential proceedings initiated/arising out of the said crime number for alleged offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, in the interest of justice.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent No.1. Despite due service of notice, none appears on behalf of respondent No.2/complainant. 3. By way of the present petition preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (formerly Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), the petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of the charge-sheet filed in Crime No.160/2020 registered at Police Station-Durg Kotwali, District-Durg for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the consequential criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. RCC/8282/2020 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, primarily on the ground that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, that prosecution under Section 420 IPC has been initiated on the very same set of allegations which already form the subject matter of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and that Crmp 1998 of 2024 3 continuance of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that respondent No.2 lodged a written complaint before the Police Station Durg Kotwali alleging that she had developed acquaintance with the petitioner, who represented himself to be engaged in business of leather goods, investment in the share market and property dealings. It was alleged that, acting upon the allurement of the petitioner regarding lucrative returns from investment, the complainant advanced different sums of money aggregating to approximately Rs.12,00,000/- between the years 2015 and 2016. Initially, she allegedly received monthly returns as assured by the petitioner. However, after demonetization, the petitioner allegedly discontinued payment on one pretext or the other and ultimately issued two cheques bearing numbers 048054 and 048055 of Rs.6,00,000/- each, which, upon presentation, were dishonoured with the endorsement "Drawer's Signature Differs". On the basis of the said allegations, FIR bearing Crime No.160/2020 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, where after investigation culminated in filing of the charge-sheet and registration of Criminal Case No. RCC/8282/2020. 5. The petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the allegations are wholly false and have been levelled with an oblique motive to pressurize and harass him. According to the petitioner, the dishonoured cheques were issued in connection with a proposed property transaction as Crmp 1998 of 2024 4 advance money, which subsequently could not materialize due to personal reasons. It is his specific case that respondent No.2 had already instituted proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of the very same cheques much prior to lodging the FIR and the allegations contained in both proceedings are substantially identical. It is, therefore, urged that the present prosecution under Section 420 IPC is nothing but a colourable attempt to convert a civil dispute into a criminal prosecution and amounts to abuse of the process of law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the entire charge-sheet and accompanying material are accepted at their face value, the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC are conspicuously absent. It is contended that the allegations merely disclose a monetary transaction between the parties and subsequent non-payment thereof, which, at the highest, may give rise to civil consequences. There is no material to indicate that the petitioner possessed any fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction, which is a sine qua non for constituting the offence of cheating. 7. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 had already invoked the remedy available under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of the same transaction and dishonoured cheques. The criminal proceedings initiated subsequently under Section 420 IPC are founded upon identical allegations and constitute a second attempt to recover the Crmp 1998 of 2024 5 same amount by giving a criminal colour to a civil dispute. It is argued that continuation of both proceedings on identical factual allegations amounts to abuse of the process of Court and deserves to be interdicted in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation prima facie disclose commission of the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. It is contended that the complainant has specifically alleged that the petitioner induced her to part with substantial amounts of money by making false representations regarding investment in the share market and thereafter failed to return the amount despite repeated assurances. 9. It is further submitted that at the stage of considering a petition seeking quashment of the charge-sheet, this Court is not expected to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact. Since the investigating agency has, after due investigation, filed the charge-sheet and the allegations disclose a prima facie case, the matter ought to be permitted to proceed to trial, where the rival versions of the parties can appropriately be examined on the basis of evidence on record. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Crmp 1998 of 2024 6 11. The principal question that arises for consideration is whether the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation, even if accepted in their entirety, disclose the commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code or whether the dispute is predominantly civil in nature, continuation whereof would amount to abuse of the process of law. 12. A careful perusal of the complaint would reveal that the case of the complainant is that she allegedly invested certain amounts with the petitioner on the assurance of receiving higher returns and that, subsequently, the petitioner issued two cheques towards repayment of the amount, which came to be dishonoured. It is also not in dispute that prior to registration of the present FIR, respondent No.2 had already instituted proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of the very same cheques and the same transaction. The allegations forming the foundation of both the proceedings are substantially identical. 13. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, it would be pertinent to notice the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 420 IPC contemplates punishment for cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. The sine qua non for attracting the said provision is the existence of fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the accused at the very inception of the transaction, whereby the person deceived is Crmp 1998 of 2024 7 induced to deliver property or to do or omit to do something which he or she would not otherwise have done. Mere failure to fulfil a promise or subsequent inability to repay money, without anything more, does not by itself constitute the offence of cheating unless it is established that the accused possessed the requisite dishonest intention from the very beginning of the transaction. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168, has succinctly explained this distinction in paragraph 15 by observing as under:- “15. In determining the question it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning, that is, when he made the promise cannot be presumed.” 15. Likewise, in V.Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat (2009) 3 SCC 78, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that a purely civil dispute cannot be permitted to assume the colour of a criminal offence merely because one Crmp 1998 of 2024 8 party has failed to honour its contractual obligations. Similarly, in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736, it has been held that criminal proceedings should not be encouraged where the dispute is essentially of a civil nature and has been given a cloak of a criminal offence with an oblique motive. 16. Another significant circumstance which cannot be lost sight of, is that respondent No.2 had already chosen to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of the dishonoured cheques before lodging the present FIR. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arising out of the very same transaction have already culminated in acquittal of the present petitioner by the judgment dated 24.09.2025. The allegations constituting the foundation of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the present prosecution under Section 420 IPC are substantially identical. The present prosecution, therefore, appears to be an attempt to give a criminal colour to what is essentially a civil and commercial dispute. Though proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and prosecution for cheating are not mutually exclusive in every case, the latter can continue only where the necessary ingredients of the offence of cheating are independently made out. 17. In the facts of the present case, no material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the petitioner possessed fraudulent or Crmp 1998 of 2024 9 dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction and, therefore, the basic ingredients constituting the offence under Section 420 IPC are conspicuously absent. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down the principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first information report and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the report, their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC/528 of BNSS should be exercised, which are as under: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. Crmp 1998 of 2024 10 (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are 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. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing Crmp 1998 of 2024 11 efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 19. In the matter of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673, the Supreme Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 528 BNSS (482 of Cr.P.C) should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. It was held as under: “12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has Crmp 1998 of 2024 12 to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.” 20. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the fact that the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arising out of the same transaction have already been decided vide its order dated 24.09.2025 resulting in acquittal of the petitioner, and the absence of any material indicating dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction, this Court is of the considered opinion that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. The criminal proceedings appear to have been initiated only by assigning a criminal colour to a dispute arising out of a monetary transaction. Permitting such prosecution to continue would amount to abuse of the criminal process. 21. This Court also finds it significant that despite due service of notice for appearance on the next date of hearing, respondent No.2 has neither appeared before this Court nor made any endeavour to contest the present petition. Such conduct further indicates that respondent No.2 is no longer interested in prosecuting or defending the criminal proceedings before this Court. Though the petition has been considered on its own Crmp 1998 of 2024 13 merits and not merely on account of the absence of respondent No.2, her non-appearance despite specific directions is an additional circumstance which lends support to the conclusion that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. 22. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. 23. The charge-sheet filed in Crime No.160/2020 registered at Police Station Durg Kotwali, District Durg, for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No. RCC/8282/2020 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg are hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.07.10 12:26:55 +0530