1 2026:CGHC:824-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 18 of 2026 Nandkishore Sahu S/o Late Mahaveer Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Quarter No. 04 / B, Road- 33, Sector- 5, Bhilainagar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Nandani, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Radheshyam Verma S/o Bholaram Verma Aged About 41 Years Tahsil Office, Ahiwara, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 07.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.01.08 17:41:00 +0530 2 2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers :- “a) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quash the impugned FIR No. 201/2025 dated 13.08.2025 registered at Police Station, Nandini for the offence Nagar, District-Durg (C.G.), punishable under Section 318(4), 338,336(3), 340(2) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita and Section 66(C) of Information Technology Act, against petitioner. the b) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Pass any other order(s) that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding the cost of litigation to the petitioner.” 3. The prosecution case, as emerging from the impugned FIR dated 13.08.2025 bearing FIR No. 201 of 2025 registered at Police Station Nandini, District Durg, is that one Sh. Dinu Ram Yadav, in conspiracy with co-accused Sh. Esram Banjare, allegedly misused the User ID allotted to a Patwari and prepared forged revenue records pertaining to certain Khasra Numbers. It is alleged that on the basis of such forged documents, the said accused persons obtained loans from the State Bank of India and dishonestly appropriated the loan amounts for their personal benefit. During the course of investigation, it surfaced that on 26.06.2025, an amount of Rs. 20,26,547.20 was transferred by Sh. Dinu Ram Yadav to the present petitioner by way of cheque. On this sole basis, the petitioner has been sought to be implicated, despite the fact that he is not named as an accused in the FIR and no specific role, overt 3 act, or allegation of knowledge or participation in the alleged forgery, cheating, impersonation, or cyber offences has been attributed to him. The prosecution does not allege that the petitioner was involved in obtaining the Patwari User ID, preparation of forged documents, procurement of bank loans, or diversion of the loan amount. The case of the petitioner is that the said amount was received purely towards repayment of a lawful loan of Rs. 20 Lakhs advanced by him to Sh. Dinu Ram Yadav in the year 2022, duly acknowledged through a written agreement, and that he was completely unaware of the source of funds or any alleged illegal activity of the principal accused. Notwithstanding the absence of incriminating material, the prosecution has proceeded to register the case under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Section 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000, against the petitioner, which, according to him, is based merely on suspicion arising out of a financial transaction and not on any prima facie evidence of criminal intent or common intention. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, even if taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence against the petitioner. The impugned FIR is completely silent with respect to the role, involvement, or knowledge of the petitioner, and his name is conspicuously absent from the narrative of the alleged crime. The allegations of creating forged revenue records, misusing the User ID of a Patwari, and fraudulently obtaining loans from the bank are 4 directed exclusively against the principal accused, namely Sh. Dinu Ram Yadav and Sh. Esram Banjare, without any reference whatsoever to the petitioner. The petitioner has been sought to be implicated solely on the basis of a single financial transaction, i.e., receipt of an amount of Rs. 20,26,547.20 from the main accused, which, in fact, represents a bona fide and lawful repayment of a pre- existing loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- advanced by the petitioner to Sh. Dinu Ram Yadav in the year 2022, duly acknowledged by a written loan agreement. The receipt of money in discharge of a lawful debt cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed as a criminal act. It is further submitted that the FIR has been registered under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), and 3(5) of the BNS, and Section 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000, however, ex facie none of the ingredients of the said offences are attracted qua the petitioner. In particular, the offence under Section 336(3) BNS is not made out, as there is no allegation of the petitioner having made or used any false document or false record, nor any intention to cause damage, injury, wrongful gain, or to induce any person to part with property. There is also a complete absence of material to invoke the doctrine of common intention, as there is not even an iota of evidence to suggest any prior meeting of minds, concert, or participation of the petitioner with the principal accused in the alleged offences. 5. He further submits that there is no allegation that the petitioner ever accessed the said software, participated in the creation of forged Khasra numbers, interacted with the bank authorities, or played any 5 role in the procurement or disbursal of the alleged loan amount. His alleged involvement is confined only to being a passive recipient of funds in an entirely separate, pre-existing, and lawful transaction. The petitioner is neither the beneficiary of any unlawful transaction nor is there any direct or indirect prima facie evidence on record to connect him with the alleged offences. It is further submitted that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law, as the case against him rests solely on conjectures and surmises rather than on any cogent or admissible evidence. He also submits that this Court, while granting bail to the petitioner vide order dated 06.11.2025 passed in MCRC No. 7828 of 2025, has already taken note of the factual matrix of the case, including the contention that the transaction in question was purely in discharge of a lawful debt and that there exists no direct or indirect prima facie evidence against the petitioner, which further fortifies the petitioner’s claim for quashing of the proceedings. 6. On the other hand, leaned State counsel submits that the investigation conducted so far has revealed that the amount of Rs.20,26,547.20 transferred by the principal accused, Sh. Dinu Ram Yadav, to the petitioner forms part of the proceeds generated from the fraudulent loan transaction obtained on the basis of forged revenue records and misuse of the “Bhuiya” land-record software. It is submitted that the financial trail constitutes an important link in the chain of circumstances and cannot be brushed aside at this stage. The State further submits that the role of the petitioner is a matter of 6 investigation and trial, and the exact nature of his knowledge and involvement can only be unearthed after a full-fledged investigation and appreciation of evidence. It is contended that at the stage of consideration of a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, this Court ought not to undertake a meticulous examination of evidence or conduct a mini-trial. The State submits that the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences and that the investigation is still at a crucial stage, wherein custodial interrogation, examination of financial transactions, and verification of documents are necessary. It is, therefore, submitted that the petition for quashing is premature and liable to be dismissed in the interest of a fair and effective investigation. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the FIR, the case diary, and the material collected during the course of investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations levelled in the FIR disclose the commission of cognizable offences. The material on record prima facie indicates a financial link between the principal accused and the present petitioner, which requires deeper scrutiny during investigation and trial. At this stage, the role of the petitioner cannot be conclusively ruled out, as the source of funds, the nature of the transaction, and the extent of knowledge of the petitioner are matters requiring appreciation of evidence. This Court, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, cannot 7 undertake a roving enquiry or evaluate the defence of the petitioner in the nature of a mini-trial. The parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for quashing of criminal proceedings are not satisfied in the present case, as the FIR and accompanying material cannot be said to be wholly absurd, inherently improbable, or mala fide. The investigation is still in progress, and interference at this stage would hamper a fair and effective investigation. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to exercise its inherent powers for quashing the FIR or the consequential proceedings. 9. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet