1 CGHC010285992026 2026:CGHC:32169-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1926 of 2026 1 - Pankaj Choudhary S/o Sakaldeep Choudhary, Aged About 50 Years R/o Rajendranagar, Darripara, Police Station Manipur, District Surguja (C.G.) 2 - Anuj Singh, S/o Late Harinarayan Singh, Aged About 43 Years R/o Mayapur, Lal Bahadur Shastri Ward, Ambikapur, Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 3 - Bhakku Ram Munda, S/o Mohan Ram Munda, Aged About 40 Years R/o Darripara, Police Station Manipur, District Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Vikas Kumar Mishra, S/o Late Prem Mishra, Aged About 40 Years R/o Darridand, Jeevan Jyoti Ke Paas, Ward No. 46, Police Station Manipur, District Surguja (C.G.) 5 - Sumit Tiwari, S/o Anil Tiwari, Aged About 25 Years R/o Patpariya, Anil Kirana Ke Paas, Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja (C.G.) 6 - Atul Kumar Dubey, S/o Satyendra Dubey, Aged About 29 Years R/o D. C. Road, Mahavir Ward, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Alka Singh, W/o Praveen Pratap Singh, Aged About 32 Years R/o Navapara, Godhanpur Road, Ambikapur, Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For State/ Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sumit Singh, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 28.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sumit Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, 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 petitioners with the following prayers : “i) Call for the entire records pertaining to FIR No. 423/2025 registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja (C.G.) ii) Quash the First Information Report bearing Crime No. 423/2025 dated 26.07.2025 registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 61(2), 318(4), 338, 339 and 217 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937, insofar as the present petitioners are concerned. iii) Quash the Charge-sheet/Final Report No. 142/2026 dated 07.05.2026 filed before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur in Criminal Case arising out of the aforesaid FIR, insofar as the present petitioners are concerned. iv) Quash the order taking cognizance dated 08.05.2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur pursuant to the aforesaid charge- sheet, insofar as the present petitioners are concerned. v) Consequently, quash all further criminal proceedings inCriminal Case No. 6114/2026, pending in 3 the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur against the present petitioners. vi) Pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, in the interest of justice. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the impugned FIR was lodged by Smt. Alka Singh alleging that she had borrowed money from co- accused Anupama Singh, who, in conspiracy with the present petitioners and others, fabricated documents relating to the alleged loan transaction and thereafter initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During investigation, the police recorded statements of witnesses, seized the alleged stamp paper, mobile phones and electronic data including WhatsApp chats, and issued notices to certain petitioners calling upon them to explain the source of the amounts allegedly advanced by them to Anupama Singh. The petitioners submitted detailed explanations along with Income Tax Returns, bank statements and other documents showing that the amounts were advanced from their lawful income and personal savings and after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed Charge-sheet No. 142/2026 against the petitioners. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present FIR is nothing but a counterblast to the proceedings already instituted by co-accused Anupama Singh under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the complainant and her husband. It is argued that the admitted prosecution case itself discloses that the 4 entire loan transaction was between the complainant and Anupama Singh and that the petitioners were never parties to the alleged borrowing, execution of the disputed agreement or issuance of the dishonoured cheques. Their implication is founded solely on the allegation that Anupama Singh had arranged certain amounts from the petitioners before advancing money to the complainant. Such financial assistance, even if assumed to be true, does not attract any criminal liability nor does it disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged. Learned counsel further submits that the FIR and the charge-sheet are conspicuously silent regarding any specific overt act attributable to the petitioners. There is no allegation that the petitioners induced or deceived the complainant, participated in the execution or fabrication of the disputed document, forged any signature, or shared any common intention or meeting of minds with the principal accused. It is contended that the investigating agency has mechanically arraigned the petitioners merely because their names were disclosed by Anupama Singh as persons from whom she had arranged funds. The petitioners had fully cooperated with the investigation by furnishing detailed explanations regarding the lawful source of the amounts allegedly advanced by them, supported by Income Tax Returns, bank statements and other financial records, which have neither been disputed nor disproved. Even the WhatsApp chats relied upon by the prosecution only indicate the alleged source of funds and do not 5 disclose any criminal conspiracy or participation in the alleged offences. It is further submitted that the prosecution itself admits that the handwriting examination of the disputed agreement is still pending and that further investigation has been kept open under Section 349 of the BNSS for obtaining specimen handwriting. It is also submitted that in the absence of any scientific evidence connecting the petitioners with the alleged forged document, the filing of the charge-sheet against them is wholly premature and unsustainable. Learned counsel contends that the criminal proceedings have been initiated only as a retaliatory measure to frustrate the cheque dishonour proceedings and to exert pressure not only upon Anupama Singh but also upon every person who allegedly extended financial assistance to her. It is, therefore, submitted that the present case is a classic instance of malicious prosecution and abuse of the process of law, attracting the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, thereby warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, to quash the impugned FIR, charge-sheet and consequential proceedings. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the impugned FIR has been registered on the basis of a cognizable complaint and that, upon completion of investigation, sufficient material has been collected to prima facie disclose the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences. It is contended that the investigation 6 revealed that co-accused Anupama Singh had arranged substantial amounts from the present petitioners before advancing the loan to the complainant and that the statements of witnesses, electronic evidence, including WhatsApp chats, and other materials collected during investigation disclose circumstances indicating the participation of the petitioners in the alleged conspiracy. It is submitted that these materials constitute sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners and cannot be discarded at the threshold. It is further submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance after considering the material collected during investigation and, at the stage of taking cognizance or exercising inherent jurisdiction, the Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out and not whether the prosecution is likely to result in conviction. The allegations of mala fides, false implication and counterblast 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 is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. 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 7 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. 8. 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 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. 9. 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 8 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. 10. In the present case, the allegations contained in the FIR, the statements recorded during investigation and the material collected by the Investigating Agency, including the electronic evidence relied upon in the charge-sheet, prima facie disclose that the prosecution alleges the petitioners to be participants in a larger transaction involving the alleged advancement of funds by co-accused Anupama Singh to the complainant. Whether the petitioners had knowledge of the alleged fraudulent transaction, whether they were merely financiers as claimed by them, or whether they shared any common intention or entered into any criminal conspiracy with the principal accused, are all matters requiring appreciation of evidence during trial. These are disputed questions of fact which cannot be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. The explanations furnished by the petitioners regarding the lawful source of the money, supported by Income Tax Returns and bank statements, 9 constitute matters of defence which may be duly considered by the Trial Court upon appreciation of evidence. Likewise, the contention that the handwriting examination is still pending or that the WhatsApp chats do not establish conspiracy cannot be examined in detail at this preliminary stage, particularly when the investigation has culminated in submission of the charge-sheet and the prosecution has placed material which it proposes to establish during trial. 11. The contention of the petitioners that the present FIR is a counterblast to the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act also cannot, by itself, furnish a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings. Even if civil proceedings or proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are pending between the parties, the same does not ipso facto bar criminal prosecution if the allegations disclose the ingredients of cognizable offences. The Supreme Court in Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751, Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736, and Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 14 SCC 350, has consistently held that merely because a transaction has civil consequences, criminal proceedings cannot be quashed if the allegations disclose the commission of criminal offences. Similarly, allegations of mala fides or ulterior motive lose significance where the allegations in the complaint and the material collected during investigation disclose a prima facie case. The law is well settled 10 that if the factual foundation for the offence has been laid, criminal proceedings cannot be interdicted merely because the accused alleges that the prosecution is motivated. 12. In view of the aforesaid settled principles and considering the allegations contained in the FIR, the material collected during investigation and the charge-sheet submitted before the competent Court, this Court is of the opinion that it cannot be said, at this stage, that no offence whatsoever is disclosed against the petitioners or that the continuation of the prosecution amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. The pleas raised by the petitioners involve disputed questions of fact requiring adjudication upon evidence before the Trial Court. Consequently, the present case does not fall within any of the exceptional categories warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing the criminal proceedings as enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra). 13. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that any observation made herein is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The learned Trial Court shall proceed with the matter independently and uninfluenced by any observation contained in this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra