1 2026:CGHC:6141-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 359 of 2026 Mohammad Akthar S/o Akbar Ali Aged About 23 Years R/o Near Amanaka Hotel City Pride P.S. Amanaka, District- Raipur (C.G.) Permanent Residence Karur. P.S. Arvakurchi District- Karur (T.N.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through SHO Kumhari P.S. District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Madhvi Pansare W/o Mukund Pansare Aged About 55 Years R/o Ganesh Nagar, P.S. Shivaji Nagar District- Latur (M.H.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. T.K. Jha and Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, Advocates For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 04.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. T.K. Jha and Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short, ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the petitioner seeking following prayer :- ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the FIR No. 0163/2025 against the accused person, to set-aside the impugned order dated 24.10.2025 i.e. taking cognizance of offence u/s 317(2),318(4) & 3(5) of BNS, 2023 Cri. Case No.3793/2025] and the filing of Charge sheet No. 129/2025 along with the entire proceedings (Criminal case no. 3793 of 2025) pending in the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhilai 03, District-Durg (C.G.) in the interest of justice.” 3. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that based on the Information received from the Samanvay Portal (Acknowledgment No. 31908250140708) of Home Department regarding Online Fraud vide a Mule Account number 43115571158, a First Information Report No. 0163 dated 25.08.2025 was registered in P.S. Kumhari, Durg (C.G.) against the Account Holder of said mule account named Smt. Nisha Behera u/s 317(2),318(4) of BNS,2023. On the basis of said FIR dated 25.08.2025, the police had arrested the account holder of said mule account i.e. Smt. Nisha Behera on 26.08.2025. 4. It is further case of the prosecution that during the course of investigation, accused Nisha Behera in her disclosure statement dated 26.08.2025 had disclosed that she operates a thela near Kumhari Overbridge, Raipur. Few days ago, she had purchased some utensils from the accused/petitioner Mohammad Akhtar who is a Utensils Seller. On that very same day, the petitioner by 3 stating that his Bank Account got closed, had asked the accused Nisha Behera to provide him her Account No. so that his money could be deposited in her account & for this purpose, the petitioner had promised to pay Rs. 10,000/- as gratification for this favor. 5. The accused Nisha Behera gave her SBI bank A/c No. 43115571158 to the accused/petitioner Mohammad Akhtar. On 08.08.2025, the accused/petitioner Mohammad Akhtar informed the accused Nisha Behera that his money Rs.4,50,002/- got deposited in her bank account. On the very same date, the accused Nisha Behera has withdrawn the said amount vide Cheque 359648 and handed the entire cash to accused/petitioner for which the petitioner gave her Rs. 10,000/- as per his promise. On the basis of her disclosure statement dated 26.08.2025, the police had arrested the petitioner i.e. Mohammad Akhtar on 29.08.2025 u/s 317(2), 318(4) & 3(5) of BNS, 2023. 6. Statements of complainants namely Mukund & Madhvi Pansare R/o Dist-Latur (M.H.) i.e. the persons on whose complaint in Samanvay Portal regarding Online Fraud, the Acknowledgment No.3190825140708 was generated & the said FIR is lodged against the accused persons has been recorded. As per the complainant, she is a housewife residing in Dist-latur, Maharashtra. On 02.08.2025, a WhatsApp Call from No. 8374189239 & 760593658 was received to her mobile phone in which she & her husband was threatened of being Digitally 4 arrested & were asked to deposit Rs. 14,00,000/- in a Bank A/c. Due to fear, the couple had deposited Rs. 14,00,000/- in the Account No. 251009100904. On being realized of been victim of Online fraud, they have registered a FIR against the said WhatsApp no. from which the online fraud has been done. 7. After the completion of investigation, the police had submitted the Charge sheet No.129/25 dated 24.10.2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhilai 03, Durg (C.G.) & on the basis of same, the learned Trial Court has taken cognizance against the accused persons. Hence, this petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to establish a clear case of online fraud against the accused. The memorandum statement does not demonstrate how the accused was involved in cheating the victims, as the victim, Madhvi Pansare, only testified about receiving threatening WhatsApp calls on 02.08.2025, instructing her to transfer Rs. 14,00,000/- to a specified account. However, no electronic evidence such as Call Detail Records (CDRs) or investigation into the mobile numbers or bank accounts involved has been collected, leaving a critical gap in the evidence. Furthermore, while Nisha Behera did receive Rs. 4,50,002/- in her account, the prosecution has not shown that she knowingly received stolen property or was involved in any fraudulent activity against the complainants. There is no substantive evidence linking the accused to the online fraud. He further argued that 5 both accused, Nisha Behera and Mohammad Akhtar, acted in good faith. Nisha Behera provided her bank details to Akhtar, believing she was helping him with a legitimate transaction, and had no knowledge of the source or nature of the deposited money. Similarly, Akhtar’s request for assistance in receiving money through her account was based on his genuine need. The prosecution has failed to provide any reliable evidence that the accused were part of the fraudulent scheme reported by the victims. Given that there is no prima facie case and the accused have already been subjected to significant legal and personal consequences, continuing the trial would be an abuse of the process of law and an unnecessary punishment. Therefore, the petitioner respectfully submits that the charges against the accused should be quashed. 9. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent opposed this petition and submitted that the charges framed against the accused, Nisha Behera and Mohammad Akhtar, are based on a thorough investigation and the material evidence gathered during the course of the proceedings. The complaint lodged by the victims, Mukund and Madhvi Pansare, who were defrauded of Rs. 14,00,000/- following threatening WhatsApp calls, clearly indicates that a fraudulent scheme was orchestrated, and the accused played a crucial role in facilitating the illegal transaction. He further argued that the victim’s testimony, coupled with the fact that the accused received 6 and later transferred a significant amount of money (Rs. 4,50,002/-) through Nisha Behera’s bank account, establishes a direct link to the crime. The failure to collect certain electronic evidence or investigate mobile numbers further does not negate the clear involvement of the accused in the unlawful financial transaction, particularly since Nisha Behera was aware that the money she received was for Mohammad Akhtar, even if she did not know the exact origin of the funds. He further contended that the defense’s argument that the accused acted in good faith and had no knowledge of the fraud is without merit. The nature of the transaction itself where a significant amount of money was transferred into Nisha Behera’s account and immediately withdrawn and handed over to Akhtar raises serious concerns of complicity. The claim that the accused acted out of goodwill or ignorance cannot be accepted without a proper trial to examine all the circumstances surrounding the transaction. The prosecution has provided sufficient material, including the complainants’ statements and the bank transactions, to establish a prima facie case. The charges framed against the accused under Sections 317(2), 318(4), and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, are well-founded, and the continuation of the trial is essential to bring out the full extent of the fraudulent activities and ensure justice for the victims. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned FIR, charge-sheet, order taking cognizance and the materials placed on record. 7 11. Upon review of the submissions and the available evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution has laid a prima facie case against the accused. The complainants, Mukund and Madhvi Pansare, have provided credible testimony regarding the fraudulent activities they were subjected to, which led them to transfer Rs. 14,00,000/- under threat of digital arrest. The accused, Nisha Behera, received Rs. 4,50,002/- in her bank account, which she withdrew and handed over to Mohammad Akhtar. This transaction, coupled with the statements of the victims, forms a sufficient basis to establish that the accused were involved in the fraudulent activity, regardless of whether they had knowledge of the exact source of the funds. 12. While the petitioner argues that the accused acted in good faith and had no knowledge of the fraud, this defense does not absolve him from his involvement in the transaction. The failure to collect certain electronic evidence, such as Call Detail Records (CDRs), does not diminish the prosecution's case, as there is other direct evidence linking the accused to the crime. The Court also finds that the charges framed under Sections 317(2), 318(4), and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 are not premature or baseless. 13. Based on the facts and evidence presented, this Court concludes that there is a prima facie case against the accused, and the continuation of the criminal proceedings is necessary to determine the full extent of their involvement in the online fraud. The petitioner's request for the dismissal of the charges is therefore 8 rejected. The criminal proceedings against the accused shall continue, and the matter shall be proceeded with in accordance with the law. 14. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra