1 CGHC010264422026 2026:CGHC:31838-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1912 of 2026 1. Shakti Chakraborty W/o Rathindra Chakraborty Aged About 45 Years R/o Arpanchal Kali Badi Kalyanbag, Rajkishore Nagar, P.S. Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Rathindra Chakraborty S/o Bishwnath Chakraborty Aged About 46 Years R/o Arpanchal Kali Badi Kalyanbag, Rajkishore Nagar, P.S. Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Chirmiri, District- Manendragarh, Chirmiri- Bharatpur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Mehta, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 27.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Neeraj Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.07.27 19:01:46 +0530 2 2. Although the present petition was listed today for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, it was taken up for final hearing and is being finally disposed of at the admission stage itself. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: “1. Allow this petition and, 2. Quash FIR No. 0175 of 2026 dated 23.04.2026 registered at Police Station Chirmiri, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, insofar as the present petitioners are concerned.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petition has been preferred seeking quashment of FIR No. 0175/2026 dated 23.04.2026 registered at Police Station Chirimiri, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, insofar as they relate to the present petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, as per the prosecution case itself, the complainant was allegedly induced by the principal accused, namely, Subarno Ghoshal, to invest money in a cryptocurrency/investment scheme on the assurance that he would 3 receive a return of 10% every month and that the invested amount would be doubled within approximately ten months. Acting upon such representations, the complainant transferred various amounts directly into the bank account of the principal accused. It is only when the promised returns were not received and the principal accused allegedly failed to refund the invested amount that the complainant lodged the impugned FIR. It is submitted that although the allegations, even as narrated in the FIR, are directed against the principal accused, the names of the present petitioners have also been included without any specific role being attributed to them. 6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that during the course of investigation, the petitioners have been implicated merely because they are relatives/acquaintances of the principal accused. The petitioners neither induced the complainant to invest any amount nor participated in the alleged investment scheme in any manner. No amount out of the alleged investment was ever credited to the bank accounts of either of the petitioners, and there is no material whatsoever connecting them with the alleged offence. He also contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated solely on account of their relationship/acquaintance with the principal accused and that no specific allegation, overt act, or role has been attributed to either of them. The entire monetary transaction, as reflected from the FIR itself, was exclusively between the complainant and the principal accused, and admittedly no part of the alleged investment amount was ever transferred to the petitioners. 4 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is absolutely no documentary, electronic, or oral evidence to demonstrate that the petitioners induced the complainant, participated in the alleged investment scheme, or shared any common intention with the principal accused. Mere relationship or acquaintance with the principal accused, it is argued, cannot by itself constitute criminal liability, and criminal prosecution cannot be sustained on the basis of suspicion or association in the absence of any legally admissible material. He further stated that even if the entire contents of the FIR are accepted as true in their entirety, no prima facie offence under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is made out against the present petitioners. It is contended that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, despite the complete absence of any incriminating material, would amount to an abuse of the process of law and would result in unnecessary harassment and miscarriage of justice, thereby warranting interference by this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’). 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that petitioner No.1, namely Shakti Chakraborty, is a Government employee serving as an O.T. Attendant in the District Hospital, Bilaspur, and has been discharging his official duties. His implication in the present case, despite the absence of any material connecting him with the alleged offence, further demonstrates the arbitrary nature of the prosecution. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel places reliance 5 upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and submits that the present case squarely falls within the categories enumerated therein, particularly where the allegations in the FIR, even if accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence against the petitioners; where the uncontroverted allegations and the material collected during investigation fail to disclose the commission of any offence; where the allegations are inherently improbable; and where continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings, insofar as they relate to the present petitioners, deserve to be quashed. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the allegations made in the impugned FIR, if taken at their face value, clearly disclose the commission of a cognizable offence against the principal accused. It is further submitted that the role of the present petitioners is under investigation and the Investigating Agency has collected material indicating their connection with the principal accused. He further contends that the plea raised by the petitioners that they are merely relatives/acquaintances of the principal accused, that no money was transferred to their bank accounts and that they had no role in the alleged transaction are all matters of defence which cannot be examined in a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS. It is further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and, at this stage, this Court ought not to appreciate the evidence or embark upon an enquiry 6 into the correctness of the allegations. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 11. A perusal of the impugned FIR reveals that the complainant alleged that he was induced by the principal accused, namely, Subarno Ghoshal, to invest money in a cryptocurrency/investment scheme on the assurance that he would receive 10% return every month and that the invested amount would be doubled within approximately ten months. Believing such representations, the complainant transferred various amounts directly into the bank account of the principal accused. Subsequently, when the promised returns were not received and the principal accused allegedly failed to return the invested amount, the complainant lodged the impugned FIR not only against the principal accused but also against the present petitioners. The allegation against the petitioners is that they are relatives/acquaintances of the principal accused and had assisted him in the alleged investment scheme. The investigation is presently in progress. 12. The legal position governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is well settled. The jurisdiction to quash an FIR is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised sparingly, with great circumspection and only in exceptional cases. Ordinarily, the High Court should not interfere with the investigation of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations contained in the 7 FIR, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie disclose the commission of any offence or continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law, the Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 14. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 of the BNSS), the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations, appreciate the evidence or 8 conduct a mini trial. The Court is only required to examine whether the allegations contained in the FIR, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court further observed that investigation into cognizable offences should ordinarily be permitted to proceed unhindered and criminal proceedings should not be scuttled at the threshold except in exceptional circumstances. 15. Recently, in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No.3831 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid principles and held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, the High Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact or evaluate the evidentiary value of the material collected during investigation. It was further held that criminal proceedings can be quashed only where the material relied upon by the accused is of sterling and impeccable quality, completely demolishes the prosecution case and continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law. 16. Examining the facts of the present case in the light of the aforesaid principles, the principal contention of the petitioners is that they have been falsely implicated merely because they are relatives/acquaintances of the principal accused. According to the petitioners, they neither induced the complainant to invest any amount nor received any part of the alleged investment amount in their bank accounts. They further contend that there is no documentary, electronic 9 or oral evidence connecting them with the alleged offence. These submissions, however, constitute the defence of the petitioners. Whether the petitioners had any role in the alleged investment scheme, whether they acted in concert with the principal accused and whether any material exists connecting them with the alleged offence are all disputed questions of fact which require a thorough investigation and appreciation of evidence. Such disputed factual issues cannot be adjudicated by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 17. At this stage, this Court is only required to examine whether the allegations contained in the FIR, if accepted at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. Though the principal allegations are against the principal accused, the FIR also names the present petitioners and the investigation is still in progress. The plea of the petitioners that no amount was credited to their bank accounts or that they had no role in the alleged transaction cannot be conclusively examined at this preliminary stage, as doing so would require this Court to appreciate the evidence collected during investigation and record findings on disputed facts, which is impermissible while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 18. It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court cannot be exercised to stifle a legitimate investigation merely because the accused disputes the allegations made against him. The contentions raised by the petitioners regarding absence of any overt act, lack of 10 evidence and their relationship with the principal accused are matters which may appropriately be urged before the Investigating Agency or the trial Court at the appropriate stage. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or record findings regarding the innocence of the petitioners. 19. Having regard to the allegations contained in the impugned FIR and the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not fall within any of the exceptional categories illustratively carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), Neeharika (supra) and Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra), warranting exercise of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. The allegations cannot, at this stage, be said to be so inherently improbable or patently absurd as to warrant quashing of the FIR at the threshold. Rather, the issues sought to be projected by the petitioners involve disputed questions of fact, the truthfulness whereof can only be determined after completion of investigation and, if necessary, during trial. 20. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for quashing of the impugned FIR is made out. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 21. It is, however, made clear that the observations made hereinabove are confined only to the adjudication of the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The Investigating Agency shall 11 proceed with the investigation strictly in accordance with law, independently and uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. It is further observed that all questions of fact and law are left open to be considered at the appropriate stage in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan