1 CGHC010225722026 2026:CGHC:29928 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1546 of 2026 Neeraj Agrawal Ghanshyam Agrawal, Aged About 41 Years R/o Vrindavan Colony Jindal Road, Raigarh (Wrongly Typed As Kotra Road Raigarh), District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pusour, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause Title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 15/07/2026 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Arpan Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Praveen VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.07.16 20:27:33 +0530 2 Das, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent/State. 2. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashment of First Information Report bearing Crime No.79/2026 registered at Police Station Pusour, District Raigarh, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(2), 317(5) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Pursuant to the order dated 18.06.2026 passed by this Court, the Deputy Inspector General of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police, Raigarh has filed his personal affidavit disclosing the evidence collected during the course of investigation against the petitioner. The petitioner has also filed a rejoinder traversing the averments made in the said affidavit. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.03.2026, during routine vehicle checking, two trucks bearing registration Nos. CG-04- PT-2645 and CG-04-PB-9652, carrying approximately 8 MT and 11 MT of M.S. scrap respectively, were intercepted by the police at Pusour, District Raigarh. Since the drivers allegedly failed to produce valid documents relating to the transportation of the scrap material at the spot, the vehicles along with the scrap were seized. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner claimed that the scrap had been purchased by M/s Mahamaya Steel, Punjipathra from M/s Masodi Enterprises, Bargarh (Odisha), and produced E-way bills in support of the transaction. Subsequently, FIR bearing Crime No.79/2026 came to be 3 registered against the petitioner and other co-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 318(2), 317(5) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 4. According to the petitioner, the scrap material was part of a genuine commercial transaction between M/s Masodi Enterprises and M/s Mahamaya Steel and both the seller as well as the purchaser have admitted the transaction. It is contended that no person has lodged any complaint claiming ownership of the seized scrap material or alleging theft thereof and, therefore, the essential ingredients of the offences of cheating and dealing with stolen property are absent. The petitioner further submits that even assuming there was any discrepancy in the timing of generation of the E-way bills, such irregularity would, at the highest, attract proceedings under the provisions of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and would not constitute offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. On these grounds, the petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashment of the aforesaid FIR. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even if the allegations contained in the FIR are accepted in their entirety, no offence under Sections 317(5), 318(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is made out against the petitioner. It is contended that the seized M.S. scrap was transported pursuant to a commercial transaction between M/s Masodi Enterprises, Bargarh (Odisha) and M/s Mahamaya Steel, Punjipathra, and both the seller as 4 well as the purchaser have admitted the transaction. It is further submitted that no third party has lodged any complaint claiming ownership of the scrap material or alleging that the same was stolen. In the absence of any complainant and any material to establish that the seized scrap constituted "stolen property", the ingredients of Section 317(5) of the BNS are wholly absent. Likewise, there is neither any deception nor any inducement causing wrongful loss to any person so as to attract the offence of cheating under Section 318(2) of the BNS. It is also argued that the petitioner is neither a partner nor the proprietor of M/s Mahamaya Steel, the E-way bills were not generated in his name and no incriminating material has been collected to connect him with the alleged offences. 6. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the entire prosecution case revolves around the alleged discrepancy in the timing of generation of the E-way bills, which, at the highest, may constitute a violation under the provisions of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for which a complete statutory mechanism and penal consequences under Sections 122, 129 and 130 of the GST Act are provided. It is argued that the GST authorities themselves have examined the matter and the dispute, if any, is purely fiscal in nature and cannot be converted into a criminal prosecution for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It is further contended that the memorandum statements of the co-accused implicating the petitioner are inadmissible in evidence and cannot constitute the sole basis for prosecuting him. Placing reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 5 State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 1947 learned Senior Counsel submits that the continuation of the criminal proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of law and, therefore, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court. 7. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State would vehemently oppose the petition and submit that the material collected during the course of investigation prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offences by the petitioner and, therefore, no case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is made out. It is submitted that during investigation it has been revealed that the two trucks were transporting scrap material without any valid E-way bills at the time of interception and the E-way bills subsequently produced by the petitioner were manipulated by altering the time of their generation from 10:14 P.M. and 10:17 P.M. to 08:14 A.M. and 08:17 A.M., respectively, so as to create an impression that the documents had been generated prior to commencement of transportation. According to the State, the said manipulation stands corroborated not only by the memorandum statements of Gulam Haider and Gulam Mohammad, but also by the official communication received from the GST authorities confirming the actual time of generation of the E-way bills. 6 8. Learned State counsel would further submit that the investigation has also revealed that the petitioner was in constant telephonic contact with the co-accused before and during the transportation of the scrap material and that the call detail records establish his active participation in the alleged conspiracy. It is further contended that spot verification of the business premises of M/s Masodi Enterprises and M/s Mahamaya Steel disclosed that the establishments lacked the basic infrastructure required for carrying on such commercial activities, thereby indicating that they were merely shell entities created for facilitating the illegal transportation of scrap. According to the State, the manipulation of official documents coupled with the coordinated acts of the petitioner and the co-accused clearly attracts the offences punishable under Sections 317(5), 318(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is, therefore, submitted that the disputed questions of fact raised by the petitioner can only be adjudicated upon after a full-fledged investigation and trial and that the present petition seeking quashment of the FIR deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the material annexed with the petition. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for exercising the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is made out. The scope of interference at the stage of investigation is extremely limited. The FIR and the material collected during 7 investigation disclose specific allegations against the petitioner regarding his alleged involvement in the transportation of the seized scrap material, manipulation of the timing of the E-way bills, his telephonic contacts with the co-accused, and other incriminating circumstances brought on record through the affidavit filed by the Senior Superintendent of Police pursuant to the order of this Court. Whether the seized scrap material was stolen property, whether the E- way bills were manipulated at the instance of the petitioner, whether the petitioner had the requisite mens rea, and whether the acts alleged would ultimately constitute offences punishable under Sections 317(5), 318(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are all disputed questions of fact, which require appreciation of evidence during the course of investigation and, if necessary, at the stage of trial. Such disputed factual issues cannot be adjudicated in proceedings seeking quashment of the FIR. 11. It is well settled that while exercising inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings, the High Court is not expected to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence or determine the correctness of the allegations. At this stage, the Court is only required to ascertain whether the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), has held that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in the rarest of rare cases falling within the illustrative categories enumerated therein. The 8 said principles have consistently been reiterated in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, wherein the Apex Court has held that ordinarily the Courts should not thwart investigation at the threshold and that quashing of an FIR should be an exception rather than the rule. Similar view has also been taken in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh, (2023) 18 SCC 399, wherein it has been held that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS), cannot appreciate the evidence or record findings on disputed questions of fact. 12. Very recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal 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. 13. The Apex Court has held that while considering a prayer for quashing of an FIR, charge-sheet or criminal proceedings, the Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial or undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence collected during investigation. The scope of judicial scrutiny at such stage is confined to examining whether the allegations made in the FIR, 9 the material collected during investigation and the charge-sheet, if accepted at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and make out a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 of the BNSS), cannot enter into disputed questions of fact, evaluate the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations, assess the evidentiary value of witness statements, or adjudicate upon the probable defence available to the accused. Such an exercise falls squarely within the province of the trial Court, which alone is competent to appreciate evidence after the parties have led their respective cases. The Apex Court cautioned that where the allegations disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences and the investigating agency has collected material in support thereof, criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the threshold merely because the accused has raised a plausible defence or disputes the correctness of the prosecution case. In th case of “Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani" (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: “20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High 10 Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:- (i)Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality? (ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. (iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted prosecution/complainant; and/or the material that justifiably refuted it cannot be by is by the such, the prosecution/complainant? (iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power 11 vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. [(See: Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013)]” 15. In the present case, the material placed before this Court by the investigating agency cannot be said to be so inherently improbable or absurd so as to warrant quashing of the FIR at the threshold. The defence sought to be raised by the petitioner that the dispute is merely one under the GST enactment and that no offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is made out are matters which can appropriately be urged before the competent Court at the appropriate stage after completion of investigation. At this juncture, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the case falls within any of the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) warranting interference in exercise of inherent powers. 16. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression on the 12 merits of the case, which shall be considered independently by the investigating agency and the competent Court in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved