1 CGHC010038852026 2026:CGHC:34460-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 314 of 2026 Santosh Sahu S/o Shri Rampal Sahu Aged About 52 Years Director, Rampal Steel, R/o Plot No. 271, Small Factory Area, Bhandara Road, Near Harihar Mandir, Pritam Complex, Nagpur (Ms) (Address And Name Correctly Mentioned) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Rajesh Agrawal S/o Late Natthulal Agrawal Aged About 59 Years Partner- M/s Chhattisgarh Steel Traders, Raipur R/o Main Road, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur ... Respondent(s) (cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. M.L. Sakat and Mr. Nikhil Parakh, Advocate For State For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate Mr. D. K. Gwalare, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06/08/2026 1. Heard Mr. B. P. Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. M.L. Sakat and Mr. Nikhil Parakh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also hearing Mr. S. S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate for the Respondent/ State and Mr. D. K. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.08.07 16:38:13 +0530 2 Gwalare, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS and in exercise thereof admit the petition, call for the records and after hearing the parties in the matter, quash the entire final report / charge sheet No.222/2023 dated 30.08.2023 filed consequent to registration of FIR No. 163/2022 in Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur at the instance respondent No.2 for the offence under Section 420 and 120-B of IPC, including the order taking cognizance dated 22.12.2023 passed by learned Criminal Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Raipur in Case No. 22580/2023 and all consequential proceedings being illegal and amounting to abuse of process of court and abuse of process of law and in violation of petitioner's fundamental and constitutional rights, in the peculiar factual matrix of the case and in the interest of justice” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case without there being any legal or factual foundation connecting him with the alleged commission of the offences. It is submitted that the entire prosecution case, as unfolded from the FIR, charge-sheet and the statements of witnesses, unequivocally demonstrates that the alleged transactions were exclusively between the complainant and SM Shop, which was being run and managed by Swapnil Mittal and his associates. The petitioner was neither a constituent nor a partner of SM Shop and had no role whatsoever in the business dealings between the complainant and the said concern. The petitioner is merely a Director of M/s Rampal Steel 3 The After Private Limited, which had independent commercial dealings with SM Shop in the ordinary course of business, as did several other traders in the steel market. Such business transactions, reflected in the regular books of account maintained by the parties, cannot by any stretch of imagination constitute evidence of criminal conspiracy or cheating. There is no allegation, much less any material collected during investigation, to show that the petitioner had induced the complainant to supply goods, had made any representation to the complainant, had participated in the negotiations, or had entered into any agreement or understanding with the principal accused to dishonestly deceive the complainant. The essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code are, therefore, conspicuously absent. 4. It is further submitted that the prosecution has sought to implicate the petitioner solely on the basis that certain amounts were shown as payable by the petitioner's company to SM Shop in the regular course of commercial transactions. Such outstanding dues, even if assumed to exist, merely give rise to a civil liability and cannot constitute the basis for criminal prosecution. The materials on record clearly indicate that SM Shop had suffered severe financial distress and had itself issued legal notices to various purchasers, including the petitioner's company, seeking recovery of outstanding amounts so that it could discharge its liabilities towards its creditors and avoid bankruptcy. The complainant, instead of availing the remedies available under civil law or other statutory mechanisms for recovery of money, has chosen to invoke the criminal machinery with the sole object of pressurising the petitioner and other purchasers to make payment of amounts allegedly 4 due to SM Shop, so that the complainant may indirectly recover his dues. Such misuse of the criminal process for enforcing contractual or monetary claims is wholly impermissible in law and amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. 5. It is, further submits that even if the entire allegations contained in the FIR and the charge-sheet are accepted in their entirety and taken at their face value, no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioner. The dispute, if any, is purely civil and commercial in nature, arising out of business transactions and alleged non-payment of money. The continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would, therefore, be nothing but a misuse of the criminal justice system and an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the FIR, the charge-sheet, the order taking cognizance and all consequential criminal proceedings against the petitioner be quashed in the interest of justice. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled, and the complainant has also agreed not to pursue any further claims and to cooperate in quashing of the proceedings. 7. Learned State counsel would submit that in view of the comprpmise arrived at between the parties, he has no objection if the proceedings are brought to an end in accordance with law. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the present dispute arises out of Crime No. 163/2022 dated 09.06.2022 registered at Police Station Azad Chowk, District Raipur, for offences punishable under 5 Sections 420, 120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations in the FIR relate to a commercial transaction concerning supply and purchase of steel materials between the complainant and SM Shop, which allegedly failed to discharge its financial obligations. During the course of investigation, the petitioner, who is a Director of M/s Rampal Steel The After Private Limited, came to be implicated on the allegation that his company had business transactions with SM Shop. It further appears from the record that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes through a voluntary settlement, whereunder respondent No.2 has no objection if all the consequential proceedings be quashed by this Court. 10. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 fairly submits that in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, respondent No.2 does not wish to prosecute the present criminal proceedings any further and has no objection if the FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings pending against the petitioner are quashed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoj Sharma v. State, (2008) 16 SCC 1, B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, has consistently held that criminal proceedings arising out of commercial, financial or business transactions having predominantly civil character can be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction where the parties have amicably settled the dispute and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 6 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly the voluntary settlement arrived at between the parties, the categorical stand of respondent No.2 that he has no objection to the quashing of the criminal proceedings, and the fact that the dispute is essentially commercial in nature with no overriding element of public interest, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No.163/2022 registered at Police Station Azad Chowk, District Raipur, for offences under Sections 420, 120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the aforesaid FIR, the charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto, the order taking cognizance and all consequential criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner deserve to be and are hereby quashed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 12. In the result, the petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is allowed. 13. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika