1 CGHC010284472026 2026:CGHC:32474-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1957 of 2026 1 - Gajula Mohan S/o Shri Gajula Mangala Aged About 46 Years R/o Malideepa, Near Jagannath Mandir Boiradadar, Raigarh, Tehsiul And District Raigarh, C.G. 2 - Chandan Das S/o Shri Bata Krishna Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 48, Maildeep Boirdadar, P.S. Chakradharnagar, Tehils And District Raigarh, C.G. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Chakradharnagar District Raigarh, C.G. 2 - Vivekanand Raut S/o Shri Bramhanand Raut Aged About 32 Years R/o Kaserpara P.S. Chakardharnagar, Raigarh District Raigarh, C.G. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 29.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rajat Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.07.30 10:33:26 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘B.N.S.S.’) with the following relief(s):- “A. Quash and set aside F.I.R. No. 337/2025 dated 01.08.2025, registered under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Chakradharnagar, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, qua both the petitioners; and/or B. Pass any other order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged on the basis of false and baseless allegations arising out of a failed investment made by the complainant in a private investment platform known as "Unity Meta Token". It is contended that the dispute, even if the allegations are accepted at their face value, is purely civil and commercial in nature and does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, particularly the existence of any dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioners at the inception of the transaction. 4. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner No.1 is neither a director nor an office bearer of the said company and had merely acted 3 as a conduit for transferring certain amounts at the request of the complainant. Out of the amount allegedly received in his account, a substantial sum has already been refunded to the complainant, which itself negates any allegation of dishonest misappropriation. It is also submitted that both the petitioners have fully cooperated with the investigation by appearing before the Investigating Officer and furnishing all documents sought from them, yet despite the lapse of nearly eleven months from the date of registration of the FIR, no charge-sheet has been filed, clearly indicating the absence of any incriminating material against them. 5. It is lastly submitted that petitioner No.1 was granted ad-interim anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and petitioner No.2 was granted anticipatory bail by this Court on the ground of parity. The petitioners have no criminal antecedents, are permanent residents of the State, and have complied with every direction issued during the course of investigation. In these circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, and therefore the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the allegations made in the FIR prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is submitted that the complainant has specifically alleged that the petitioners induced him to invest a total sum 4 of 12,61,675/- in the company "Unity Meta Token" on the assurance of ₹ monthly returns ranging between 15% and 22%. The complainant has further alleged that although he received a sum of 3,00,566/-, the ₹ remaining amount of ₹9,61,109/- has neither been returned nor accounted for despite repeated demands. 7. Learned State counsel further submits that the complainant has specifically alleged that the investment amounts were transferred to the bank account of petitioner No.1 as well as to other accounts indicated by him, and that the petitioners subsequently refused to refund the money. It is further submitted that similar allegations have also been made by other investors who allegedly suffered financial losses at the hands of the petitioners. In view of the specific allegations contained in the FIR, the investigation has rightly been set into motion, and the present petition seeking quashing of the FIR deserves to be dismissed. 8. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon a careful perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations contained in the impugned F.I.R. and the material collected during investigation disclose disputed questions of fact, particularly with regard to the role played by the petitioners in inducing the complainant to invest the amount in the investment scheme and the nature of the monetary transactions between the parties. The defence sought to be projected by the petitioners, namely that they themselves were investors, that they had no connection with the management of the 5 company, and that the dispute is purely civil in nature, are matters requiring appreciation of evidence, which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. At this stage, this Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or record findings on the merits of the rival claims. 9. It is well settled that the extraordinary jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings is to be exercised sparingly and only in the rarest of cases where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of any offence or where continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. In the present case, the allegations in the F.I.R., if taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the ingredients of the alleged offence. Whether the petitioners acted merely as intermediaries, whether they possessed the requisite mens rea, and whether the transactions were purely civil or constituted criminal cheating are all issues which can appropriately be determined only upon appreciation of evidence during trial. 10. Accordingly, finding no ground to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, the present petition is dismissed. However, considering that the petitioners have already been granted anticipatory bail, have cooperated with the investigation, and that the matter has remained pending for a considerable period, it is directed that the learned trial Court shall make all endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a 6 copy of this order, without being influenced by any observations made herein, which are confined solely to the adjudication of the present petition. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu