1 2026:CGHC:7485-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 454 of 2026 1 - Muthu Nadar Arun Sandron S/o Mutratu Aged About 63 Years R/o Nhk Lane, Vtc, Salligram, Distt - Chennai, Tamilnadu 2 - Arunavel Shanti Devi (Accused 2) W/o Muthu Nadar Arun Sandron Aged About 61 Years R/o Nhk Lane, Vtc, Salligram, Distt - Chennai, Tamilnadu ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh 2 - Mohd. Israr Kureshi Aged About 46 Years R/o Adawal Rajeev Para, Ps Bodhghat Distt - Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia and Mr. Gurmit Singh Ahluwalia, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Somya Rai, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 11.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia and Mr. Gurmit Singh Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Somya Rai, learned MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.02.11 18:06:12 +0530 2 Deputy Government Advocate for respondent No.1 / State. 2. The petitioners have filed this petition with following prayer: “Hence prayed that Hon'ble Court be please to quash the Chargesheet bearing No-72/2025 dated 17/03/2025 alongwith FIR dated 22/06/2024 for offences 420,34 of IPC registered under crime no 272/2024 at police station kotwali, Jagdalpur, District Baster and cognizance order dated 02/05/2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Bastar at Jagadalpur alongwith all consequential proceedings in Criminal Case no- 2156/2025, in exercising the inherent powers under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in the interest of justice.” 3. Prosecution story in a nutshell is that a written complaint was lodged by respondent No.2, who is the proprietor of AAA Traders, Lalbagh, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, alleging that during the period from 02/10/2021 to 06/06/2022 he had business dealings with the applicants’ firm, namely Arun Trading Point, in respect of trading of Tamarind. As per the complaint, a total quantity of 4359 quintals of Tamarind, valued at approximately Rs. 2,30,91,118/-, was supplied and transported from Jagdalpur to Chennai pursuant to the said transactions. It is alleged that against the total outstanding amount, the applicants’ firm made payment of only Rs. 1,46,00,000/-, leaving a balance sum of Rs. 84,91,118/- unpaid, and thereby dishonestly cheated the complainant. On the basis of the said written complaint, Police Station Kotwali, 3 Jagdalpur registered FIR bearing Crime No. 272/2024 dated 22/06/2024 under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC against the applicants. Apprehending arrest, the applicants approached the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur in Criminal M.P. No. 255/2024 and were granted anticipatory bail by order dated 26/09/2024. Subsequently, the applicants filed Cr.M.P. No. 713/2025 before this Court seeking quashment of the FIR, however, the said petition was disposed of vide order dated 24/02/2025 with a direction to the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and file the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC (now Section 193(3) of BNSS) expeditiously in accordance with law. In compliance thereof, the police completed the investigation and submitted the final report dated 17/03/2025 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bastar at Jagdalpur, who vide order dated 02/05/2025 took cognizance and registered Criminal Case No. 2156/2025 against the applicants. Thereafter, the applicants again challenged the FIR, charge-sheet, and order taking cognizance by filing Cr.M.P. No. 162/2026 before this Hon’ble Court, which was withdrawn on 21/01/2026 with liberty to file a fresh petition, subject to deposit of cost of Rs. 2,000/-, which has already been deposited by the applicants. It is submitted that till date, charges have not been framed against the applicants, and hence, the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare perusal of the contents of the complaint, FIR and the charge-sheet clearly 4 reveals that the dispute between the parties arises out of a purely commercial transaction pertaining to purchase and sale of Tamarind between the applicants’ partnership firm, namely Arun Trading Point, and the complainant’s proprietorship firm, AA Traders. The sole allegation against the applicants is non- payment of the alleged balance amount of Rs. 84,91,118/- out of the total transaction value, which at best constitutes a civil liability. The complainant has failed to place on record any written agreement or document evidencing a fixed rate contract or any fraudulent inducement at the inception of the transaction. Moreover, as reflected in the FIR and final report, the transactions were conducted through a broker, whose involvement is evident from the phone numbers mentioned therein, however, the said broker has neither been arrayed as an accused nor examined as a material party, which renders the investigation defective. The entire transaction squarely falls within the ambit of Section 2(1)(c) (vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, being a dispute arising out of ordinary transactions of merchants and traders, for which the appropriate remedy lies before the Civil/Commercial Court and not the Criminal Court. It is further submitted that the alleged transactions took place between 02.10.2021 and 06.06.2022, whereas the complaint was lodged only on 22.06.2024, after an unexplained delay of nearly two years, which clearly indicates an afterthought and mala fide intention to give criminal colour to a civil dispute. In blatant violation of the law laid down by the 5 Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1, no preliminary inquiry was conducted despite the matter being a commercial dispute coupled with abnormal delay in lodging the complaint, categories specifically recognized by the Apex Court for preliminary inquiry prior to registration of FIR. It is also pertinent that the applicants were granted inter-State anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras vide orders dated 16.07.2024 and 18.07.2024, and thereafter regular anticipatory bail by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar on 26.09.2024, wherein it was observed that the dispute pertains to a business transaction. Furthermore, even if the allegations in the charge-sheet are taken at their face value, the essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC are conspicuously absent, as there is no material to demonstrate any dishonest intention or fraudulent inducement on the part of the applicants at the inception of the transaction. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is well settled that criminal proceedings cannot be used as a shortcut for enforcing civil remedies. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sachin Garg v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 82, has categorically held that a commercial dispute ought not to be given criminal colour merely by incorporating penal provisions, and that where no case of criminality is made out, the High Court must exercise its jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process. Similarly, the Division Bench of this Court in Harishankar Jharray & Others v. 6 State of Chhattisgarh (2025 SCC OnLine Chh 8538), following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shailesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P., reiterated that to constitute cheating there must be material to show dishonest intention from the very inception of the transaction, and that recovery of money is a matter for the Civil or Commercial Court. Likewise, in Lekhchand Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025 SCC OnLine Chh 3964), this Court held that criminal proceedings initiated in a purely civil dispute amount to abuse of process of law. In view of the above settled legal position and the factual matrix of the present case, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicants is nothing but gross abuse of the process of law, and therefore, the final report and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed by this Court. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the allegations in the FIR and charge-sheet clearly disclose that the petitioners induced the complainant to supply huge quantities of Tamarind on the representation that full payment would be made, whereas from the very beginning they had no intention to discharge the entire liability. It is submitted that part payments were made only to gain confidence and to ensure continued supply of goods. It is further argued that investigation has revealed bank transactions, supply documents and witness statements corroborating the complainant’s allegations. At this stage, the Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out and not to 7 conduct a mini trial. It is contended that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. 7. Learned State counsel further submits that a bare perusal of the charge-sheet reveals that the complainant, proprietor of AAA- Traders, Jagdalpur, supplied tamarind worth Rs.2,30,01,118/- between 02.10.2021 and 06.06.2022 to Arun Trading Point, Chennai, operated by accused Muthu Nadar Arun Sandron and Aroonavel Shanthi Devi, on the assurance of full payment. Out of the total amount, the accused paid Rs.1,46,00,000/- in installments but dishonestly withheld the remaining Rs.84,91,118/-, and despite repeated demands, refused to make payment and stopped responding, thereby allegedly cheating the complainant. During investigation, statements were recorded, bank account details and supply bills/e-way bills were seized, and upon finding sufficient evidence, the accused were arrested on 08.03.2025, released on bail, and Charge-sheet No. 72/2025 dated 17.03.2025 has been filed before the competent Court. In pursuance to which, cognizance was taken vide order dated 02.05.2025. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 9. The scope of interference under Section 528 of the BNSS (analogous to Section 482 CrPC) is well settled and is to be exercised sparingly and only where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any offence or where continuation of 8 proceedings would amount to abuse of process. In the present case, the FIR and charge-sheet reveal that the petitioners engaged in repeated commercial transactions with the complainant over a substantial period, received goods worth more than Rs.2.30 crores, made only part payment of Rs.1.46 crores, and allegedly induced further supply on assurances while withholding the balance amount of Rs.84,91,118/-, with specific allegations that they never intended to make full payment. Whether such intention existed from inception or the dispute is purely civil is a matter for trial and cannot be adjudicated at this stage. The delay in lodging the FIR, in the backdrop of ongoing commercial dealings and negotiations, does not by itself render the prosecution case improbable. The judgment of Lalita Kumari (supra) does not mandate preliminary enquiry in every commercial matter, and once cognizable offences are disclosed, registration of FIR cannot be faulted. As the allegations prima facie attract the ingredients of Section 420 IPC, this Court cannot evaluate the defence or sufficiency of evidence in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS, and since inherent powers cannot be used to stifle legitimate prosecution, no case for quashing is made out. 10. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet