1 CGHC010218372026 2026:CGHC:31161-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1569 of 2026 1 - Ganesh Verma S/o Late Shri Shiv Kumar Verma Aged About 44 Years R/o Anand Vatika, Samriddhi Vihar, Samadhan College, Village- Fari, Bijabhat, District- Bemetara (C.G.) 2 - Awadhesh Verma S/o Late Shri Shiv Kumar Verma Aged About 42 Years R/o Anand Vatika, Samriddhi Vihar, Samadhan College, Village- Fari, Bijabhat, District- Bemetara (C.G.) 3 - Tukeshwar Verma S/o Shri Baldau Singh Verma Aged About 43 Years R/o Verma Tractors Bemetara, Near By Collectorate Bemetara, Ward No. 9, Sundar Nagar Raipur Road, District- Bemetara (C.G.) 4 - Wasim Khan S/o Shri Sakil Khan Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 10, In Front Of Govt. College, Kobiya, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) 2 - The Inspector General Of Police Durg Range, District- Durg (C.G.) 3 - The Superintendent Of Police Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) 4 - Pitambar Patel S/o Late Gangadhar Patel Aged About 48 Years R/o Gram Khairjhiti, Police Station Khamariya, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.C. Verma, Sr. Adv. Along with Mr. Mohammad Naqeeb and Ms. Pooja Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. A.G. and Mr. Dheerendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.07.24 11:16:07 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 22.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. S.C. Verma, learned Senior Advocate Along with Mr. Mohammad Naqeeb and Ms. Pooja Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Sumit Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents / State as well as Mr. Dheerendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 2. The petitioners have filed this petition with following prayer: “1. May kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the FIR dated 11/03/2017 (Annexure-P/1), bearing Crime No. 145/2017, registered at Police Station Bemetara, District- Bemetara under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the Sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. 2. May kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the Chargesheet (Final Report) dated 29/11/2025 bearing No. 584/2025 filed by P.S. Bemetara before the Court of Special Judge, Bemetara (Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005), in the interest of justice. 3. May kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside order taking cognizance dated 24/01/2026 whereby the learned Special Judge Bemetara has taken cognizance Special Case No. 01/2026 in Special 3 Cas No. 01/2026 for the section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the Sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. 4. May kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the order dated 03/02/2026 whereby the learned Special Judge has framed charges against the present Petitioners under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the Sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and the entire consequential proceedings of the Special Cas No. - 01/2026. 5. Any other relief(s) which the Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper may kindly be pleased to granted in favour of the petitioners, in the interest of justice.” 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.03.2017, an FIR bearing Crime No. 145/2017 was registered at Police Station Bemetara, District Bemetara, for the offences punishable under Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, against the Directors and agents of Dreams Power Marketing Company Limited. It was alleged that during the period between January, 2009 and February, 2010, the accused persons induced several villagers, including the complainants, to invest substantial amounts by promising allotment of residential plots, houses, and attractive incentives such as cars, motorcycles, 4 royalties, and high financial returns. The complainants alleged that the accused represented themselves as authorised representatives of the company, displayed brochures, catalogues and copies of land documents to gain their confidence, and collected an aggregate amount of approximately Rs.47,97,000 by issuing receipts for the deposits. It was further alleged that after receiving the investments, the accused demanded additional amounts, failed to allot the promised plots or houses, refused to refund the deposited money, and ultimately closed the company after allegedly diverting the investors’ funds for acquisition of properties and other personal ventures, thereby cheating the complainants. 4. The investigation remained pending for several years and, according to the petitioners, despite registration of the FIR in the year 2017, no final report was filed until directions were issued by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 187/2026 calling upon the Director General of Police to explain the inordinate delay in completing the investigation. Thereafter, the police stated that the charge-sheet had been prepared on 29.11.2025 and was presented before the competent Court on 24.01.2026, whereupon cognizance was taken in Special Case No. 01/2026 and charges were framed against the petitioners on 03.02.2026. The petitioners challenged the continuation of the criminal proceedings, contending, inter alia, that the charge-sheet had been prepared with a back date to cover up the delay in investigation. The Inspector General of 5 Police, Durg Range, had earlier found procedural irregularities in the registration of the FIR and directed an inquiry, the opinion of the State Examiner of Questioned Documents dated 24.01.2019 indicated that the disputed receipts and signatures relied upon by the complainants exhibited characteristics of forgery, the allegations were preceded by an unexplained delay of nearly eight years in registration of the FIR and that a civil suit relating to the same subject matter had already been dismissed in favour of the petitioners by judgment and decree dated 05.02.2018, which had attained finality. These are the broad facts giving rise to the present proceedings. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned FIR, the consequential charge-sheet, and the entire criminal proceedings are wholly illegal, arbitrary, and constitute an abuse of the process of law. It was contended that the allegations are founded exclusively on certain receipts, which, according to the opinion of the State Examiner of Questioned Documents, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, bear forged signatures and exhibit clear symptoms of fabrication, thereby demolishing the very foundation of the prosecution case. It was argued that the expert opinion conclusively establishes that the signatures attributed to the petitioners are not genuine and that the complainants have relied upon fabricated documents with a mala fide intention to falsely implicate them. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the alleged transactions pertain to 6 the period 2009–2010, whereas the FIR came to be registered only on 11.03.2017 after an unexplained delay of nearly eight years, which seriously affects the credibility of the prosecution case and gives rise to a strong inference of afterthought and motivated prosecution. It was further argued that the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 are not made out, inasmuch as there is no material to demonstrate any dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioners at the inception of the alleged transactions or the existence of any prohibited money circulation scheme. It was also contended that the Inspector General of Police, Durg Range, by communication dated 06.08.2018, had recorded serious procedural lapses in the registration of the FIR and noted that an earlier enquiry had not disclosed any criminal involvement of the petitioners, yet the police authorities failed to act upon the said observations for several years. 6. It was further submitted that the investigation remained pending for more than eight years after registration of the FIR and was brought to a conclusion only after this Court, while hearing the earlier petition filed by the petitioners, directed the Director General of Police to explain the inordinate delay by filing a personal affidavit. According to the petitioners, the charge-sheet, though shown to have been prepared on 29.11.2025, was 7 presented before the Trial Court only on 24.01.2026 after the aforesaid judicial directions, thereby indicating that it was backdated merely to conceal the negligence and inaction of the investigating agency. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that the very subject matter of the dispute had already been adjudicated in Civil Suit No. 41A/2012, which was dismissed by the learned IInd Civil Judge, Class-I, Bemetara, by judgment and decree dated 05.02.2018, and since the said judgment has attained finality, the continuation of criminal proceedings on the same set of facts amounts to converting a purely civil dispute into a criminal prosecution for an oblique purpose. It was also submitted that the complainants have abused the criminal process by relying upon fabricated documents and suppressing material facts, thereby initiating a vexatious prosecution to harass the petitioners. On these premises, it was contended that the present case squarely falls within the categories enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the FIR, the charge-sheet, and all consequential criminal proceedings in order to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of the Court. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, per contra, opposed the petition and submitted that the allegations contained in the FIR, the material collected during investigation, and the charge-sheet disclose the commission of cognizable offences 8 under Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, and, therefore, the present case does not warrant exercise of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of this Court. It was submitted that during the period between 2009 and 2010, the petitioners and other accused persons induced several villagers and investors to invest an aggregate amount of Rs.47,97,000/- by promising allotment of residential plots, houses and lucrative incentives including cars, motorcycles and other luxury prizes, but after collecting the said amount failed to honour their promises or refund the deposits. It was submitted that during the course of investigation, statements of the complainants and other witnesses were recorded and documentary evidence was collected indicating that the petitioners, along with other accused persons, induced the complainants to invest substantial amounts by promising allotment of residential plots, houses and other lucrative benefits, but failed to honour such promises or refund the deposited amounts. It was argued that the petitioners have raised disputed questions of fact regarding the genuineness of the receipts, the opinion of the handwriting expert, and the correctness of the allegations levelled against them, all of which require appreciation of evidence during the course of trial and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. Learned counsel further submitted that the opinion of the State Examiner of Questioned Documents is merely one piece of 9 evidence and is not conclusive in nature, and its evidentiary value can only be tested by the Trial Court after recording oral and documentary evidence 8. It was further contended that merely because civil proceedings had earlier been instituted or decided would not bar criminal prosecution if the allegations disclose the commission of a criminal offence, as civil and criminal remedies can proceed simultaneously in appropriate cases. Learned counsel submitted that the delay in completion of investigation or the allegations regarding the preparation of the charge-sheet are matters which, by themselves, do not invalidate the prosecution once a competent court has taken cognizance of the offences upon consideration of the police report. It was also argued that the petitioners are seeking a meticulous appreciation of the evidence and a determination of disputed factual issues, which is beyond the limited scope of jurisdiction exercised while considering a prayer for quashing of criminal proceedings. According to the respondent, the charge-sheet has already been filed, cognizance has been taken by the learned Special Judge, charges have been framed, and the case is at the stage of recording prosecution evidence. Therefore, interference by this Court at this stage would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution. On these grounds, it was prayed that the petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 10 documents appended with petition. 10. Upon anxious consideration of the rival submissions and the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for quashing the FIR, the charge-sheet or the consequential criminal proceedings. The allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclose that during the period between January, 2009 and February, 2010, the accused persons, acting on behalf of Dreams Power Marketing Company Limited, induced numerous villagers and investors to part with their hard-earned savings by representing that they would be allotted residential plots, houses and would also receive lucrative incentives and luxury prizes, including cars, motorcycles, royalty benefits and handsome financial returns. 11. It is specifically alleged that on the strength of such representations and assurances, an aggregate amount of Rs.47,97,000/- was collected from the complainants and other investors by issuing receipts. The prosecution further alleges that despite collecting the aforesaid amount, neither were the promised residential plots or houses allotted nor was the deposited amount refunded, and instead the company discontinued its operations after allegedly diverting the funds for acquisition of properties and other personal ventures. Such 11 allegations, if taken at their face value, unmistakably disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged and cannot, at this preliminary stage, be characterised as inherently improbable or absurd. 12. The principal contentions urged by the petitioners regarding the alleged forged receipts, the report of the State Examiner of Questioned Documents, the delay in lodging the FIR, the alleged delay in filing the charge-sheet and the correctness of the investigation are all matters requiring appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence. The evidentiary value of the handwriting expert's opinion, the genuineness of the receipts, the authority of the persons who received the deposits, the role attributable to each accused and the existence or otherwise of fraudulent intention at the inception of the transactions are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings seeking quashing of criminal prosecution. These are matters which fall squarely within the domain of the learned Trial Court and are required to be examined after the parties adduce evidence during trial. 13. The petitioners have also heavily relied upon the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.41A/2012 to contend that the dispute has already been adjudicated in their favour. However, this contention also does not merit acceptance. A perusal of the record indicates that though respondent No.4, namely Pitamber Patel, was a party to the said civil proceedings, there is nothing on 12 record to demonstrate that he had instituted the civil suit in a representative capacity or that he possessed any valid authorisation, resolution, power of attorney or other legally recognised authority from the remaining investors or depositors, who are the victims in the present criminal case, to prosecute the civil proceedings on their behalf. In the absence of any such representative authority, the civil proceedings cannot be construed as binding upon all the complainants who had allegedly invested their respective amounts with the company. Consequently, dismissal of the said civil suit cannot be treated as a conclusive adjudication of the rights of all investors nor can it operate as a bar against criminal prosecution initiated on the basis of allegations of cheating and collection of public money by fraudulent inducement. The scope, object and standard of proof in civil proceedings are entirely distinct from those governing criminal prosecution. Merely because one civil proceeding has culminated in dismissal does not ipso facto obliterate the criminal allegations where the material collected during investigation prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offences affecting a large number of investors. 14. At this stage, this Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or record findings upon disputed factual issues. It is equally well settled that where the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclose the commission of cognizable offences and the prosecution is not 13 patently frivolous or inherently improbable, the High Court ought not to stifle a legitimate prosecution by embarking upon a detailed appreciation of evidence while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. The defences sought to be raised by the petitioners remain open to be urged before the learned Trial Court, which shall decide the same independently on the basis of evidence led by the parties without being influenced by any observation contained in this order. The present case does not fall within the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), so as to justify interference under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 15. Consequently, finding no merit in the petition, the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet