1 CGHC010286172026 2026:CGHC:32170-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1927 of 2026 Kanija Begum W/o Abdul Samad, Aged About 62 Years R/o Near Ramdevji Chabutara, Bhishti Mohalla, Gandhinagar, Police Station Gandhinagar, District -Kishangarh, Rajasthan ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), 2 - Ramchandra Vastrakar S/o Diwakar Prasad Vastrakar, Aged About 37 Years R/o Shyam Colony, Balodabazar, Police Station City Kotwali Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ........ (Complainant) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Lakhan Singh Bhadoriya, Advocate For State/ Respondent No.1 : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 28.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Lakhan Singh Bhadoriya, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner with the ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 following prayers : “1. Call for the entire records of the case. 2. Quash the impugned FIR No. 307/2025 dated 26.03.2025 registered at Police Station City Kotwali Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023and subsequent Final Report No. 158/2026 dated 28.03.2026 for the offence under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and (insofar as they relate to the petitioner), 3. quash the entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1004/2026 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) including cognizance order dated 06.04.2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) for the alleged offence (insofar as they relate to the petitioner), in the interest of justice.” 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.03.2025, respondent No. 2/complainant, who is employed with HDFC Bank, lodged a written complaint alleging that on 23.07.2024, the petitioner, along with her husband and other co-accused persons, visited his residence at Balodabazar and induced him to invest in a company known as VIP Trade by falsely assuring him of guaranteed monthly returns of 10–12% on the invested amount. Believing the representations made by the accused persons, the complainant invested a total sum of Rs. 8,06,040/- through the 3 VIP Trade App. Although the application displayed growth in the investment, the accused persons allegedly avoided repayment on one pretext or another and, subsequently, switched off their mobile phones. Alleging that the petitioner and the other accused persons had dishonestly induced and cheated him by making false promises of assured returns, the complainant lodged the present complaint. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR bearing Crime No. 307/2025 dated 26.03.2025 was registered at the concerned Police Station for the alleged offences, and investigation was set in motion. 4. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that certain co- accused persons were already lodged in Central Jail, Ajmer (Rajasthan) in connection with another criminal case registered at Gandhinagar Police Station, District Ajmer, for offences under Sections 406, 420, 384 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and other allied offences. After obtaining production warrants from the competent Court, the investigating agency secured their custody, recorded their memorandum statements after obtaining police remand, and arrested them in the present case. Upon completion of investigation, Final Report No. 158/2026 dated 28.03.2026 was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balodabazar under Section 335 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, showing the present petitioner and two other co-accused persons as absconding. 5. Thereafter, by order dated 06.04.2026, the learned Chief Judicial 4 Magistrate, Balodabazar took cognizance of the offences alleged in the charge-sheet, declared the petitioner and two other co- accused persons as absconding, and issued permanent warrants of arrest against them. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR, the consequential charge-sheet and all subsequent proceedings are wholly illegal, arbitrary and constitute an abuse of the process of law. It is contended that even if the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation are accepted in their entirety, no prima facie case for the offences alleged is made out against the petitioner. The only allegation against the petitioner is that she had allegedly accompanied the other accused persons to the residence of the complainant and induced him to invest in the VIP Trade Company. However, except for the bald and omnibus allegations made in the complaint, there is no independent material to establish that the petitioner ever visited Balodabazar or the State of Chhattisgarh, met the complainant, or made any representation or promise inducing him to invest. It is further submitted that no documentary evidence, travel records, call detail records, mobile location data, CCTV footage or any independent witness has been collected during investigation to connect the petitioner with the alleged transaction. Learned counsel further submits that the dispute, at its core, arises out of an investment made by the complainant in a business venture 5 and is purely civil and commercial in nature. It is argued that a failed investment or non-payment of promised returns cannot, by itself, constitute the offences of cheating or criminal breach of trust in the absence of material showing fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. It is contended that the complainant voluntarily invested the amount after being lured by the prospect of unusually high returns and continued with the investment for more than eight months before lodging the FIR. The allegation that the investment was yielding returns at the rate of 12% per day is itself inherently improbable and commercially unrealistic, rendering the prosecution story doubtful. Learned counsel submits that the allegations, even if accepted at face value, fail to satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences alleged and the case squarely falls within Categories (1) and (5) of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. It is further submitted that the criminal proceedings have been maliciously instituted with the sole object of harassing the petitioner and exerting pressure for recovery of money by giving a criminal colour to a civil dispute. The investigating agency has failed to collect any material connecting the petitioner with the alleged company or the commission of the alleged offences, yet the petitioner has been shown as an absconder in the charge-sheet without any basis. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been residing at her permanent address throughout and was 6 never served with any notice during investigation. Despite the absence of any material to show that she was deliberately evading arrest, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate mechanically declared her absconding and issued a permanent warrant of arrest without recording the requisite satisfaction or ensuring compliance with the statutory procedure. It is, therefore, submitted that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of the Court and deserves to be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the impugned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint disclosing the commission of cognizable offences and that, after a thorough investigation, sufficient material has been collected to prima facie establish the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences. It is submitted that the complainant has specifically alleged that the petitioner, along with the other co-accused persons, visited his residence, induced him to invest in the VIP Trade Company by assuring guaranteed returns of 10–12% per month, and thereby dishonestly induced him to part with a sum of Rs. 8,06,040/-. He further submitted that during investigation, statements of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded, which corroborate the prosecution case, and upon completion of 7 investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons. Learned State counsel further submits that the contention of the petitioner that she never visited the State of Chhattisgarh, had no interaction with the complainant, or was not connected with the alleged transaction, raises disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It is argued that the defence sought to be projected by the petitioner can only be examined during trial after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. The absence of travel documents, call detail records or other corroborative material at this stage does not render the prosecution case liable to be quashed when there are specific allegations and witness statements implicating the petitioner. It is further submitted that the plea that the dispute is civil in nature cannot be accepted at this stage, as the allegations in the FIR disclose dishonest inducement and fraudulent representations made at the inception of the transaction, thereby attracting the ingredients of the offences alleged. It is further contended that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the offences on the basis of the material collected during investigation. The petitioner was shown as absconding during the course of investigation, and the consequential orders passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be examined in a petition seeking quashing of the FIR and charge- sheet, particularly when such orders are open to challenge before 8 the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Learned State counsel submits that the allegations of mala fides, false implication, and abuse of process are matters of defence which require appreciation of evidence and cannot constitute grounds for quashing the proceedings at the threshold. It is, therefore, submitted that the petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The scope of interference under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is well settled. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court illustratively enumerated the categories of cases wherein the extraordinary power to quash criminal proceedings may be exercised. The Court simultaneously cautioned that such power is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in the rarest of rare cases. The present case does not fall within any of the categories formulated in Bhajan Lal (supra) warranting interference. 10. Likewise, in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that while exercising jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings, the High Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or evaluate the correctness of the allegations. If the allegations in the First Information Report, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court should ordinarily 9 refrain from stalling the prosecution. The Court further held that disputed questions of fact and the defence of the accused are matters to be considered during trial and not at the stage of quashing. 11. Very 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 further held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS), the High Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact or evaluate the evidentiary worth of the material collected during investigation. The Court reaffirmed the test laid down in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor and observed that criminal proceedings can be quashed at the threshold only when the material relied upon by the accused is of sterling and impeccable quality, completely demolishes the prosecution case, remains incapable of being refuted by the prosecution, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. Unless all these parameters are cumulatively satisfied, the High Court ought not to interfere in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, leaving the parties to establish their respective cases before the trial Court in accordance with law. 12. In the present case, the FIR has been registered on the basis of a complaint wherein specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner and other co-accused persons that they induced the 10 complainant to invest money in VIP Trade Company by making false representations regarding assured returns and thereby dishonestly induced him to part with an amount of Rs. 8,06,040/-. During investigation, statements of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded and, upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. Thus, the prosecution case cannot be said to be based solely on vague or general allegations. 13. The contention of the petitioner that she never visited Balodabazar, never met the complainant, and did not make any representation to him, is a matter of defence which requires appreciation of evidence. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake a detailed examination of the correctness or otherwise of the allegations, evaluate the credibility of the witnesses, or determine whether the evidence collected by the prosecution would ultimately result in conviction. The issues raised by the petitioner regarding absence of travel records, call details, electronic evidence or other corroborative material are matters which can be appropriately considered by the Trial Court during the course of trial. 14. The submission that the dispute is purely civil or commercial in nature also cannot be accepted at this stage. A transaction may have civil consequences; however, where allegations are made regarding fraudulent inducement and dishonest representations at the inception of the transaction, the matter requires examination 11 during trial. The question as to whether the petitioner had any fraudulent intention at the relevant point of time or whether the transaction was merely an unsuccessful investment arrangement cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. 15. The argument regarding delay in lodging the FIR and the allegation that the promise of earning 10–12% returns per month or 12% growth per day was improbable are also matters which require appreciation of evidence and surrounding circumstances. At the stage of considering quashing of criminal proceedings, the Court is required to proceed on the basis of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation, and not on the basis of the defence version of the accused. 16. So far as the challenge to the order declaring the petitioner as absconding and issuance of warrant of arrest is concerned, the same cannot be a ground for quashing the entire criminal proceedings when the FIR and charge-sheet disclose a prima facie case. The petitioner may avail appropriate remedies available to her in accordance with law against the said orders. The allegations regarding mala fide intention, harassment and false implication are also matters which require factual determination and cannot be conclusively decided at this stage. 17. Upon consideration of the entire material available on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has placed sufficient material which requires adjudication by the Trial Court. The case does not 12 appear to be one where the allegations are completely baseless or where continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The petitioner would have full opportunity to establish her defence during the course of trial. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out for exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The allegations contained in the FIR, the material collected during investigation and the charge-sheet disclose a prima facie case requiring trial. 19. Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. It is made clear that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not prejudice the case of either party before the Trial Court. The Trial Court shall decide the matter independently on the basis of the evidence adduced before it, in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra