1 CGHC010288182026 2026:CGHC:37002-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2180 of 2026 1 - Anil Jaiswal S/o Shri Durga Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Pakargaon, Lailunga, Police Station- Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Deepmala Jaiswal W/o Anil Kumar Jaiswal Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Pakargaon, Lailunga, Police Station- Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Rampur, Police Outpost C.S.E.B, Distt. Korba (C.G.) 2 - Praveen Agrawal S/o Late Bhagwat Agrawal, In Front of Central Bank, Raipur Road, Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners : Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 19.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Kaushal Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharariya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 following prayers :- “(1) quash FIR dated 23.02.2021 in Crime No. 134/2021 registered at Police Station Kotwali Korba, District (C.G.), u/s 420, 34 of IPC in relation to the present petitioners (Annexure P/1). (2) Quash the chargsheet bearing no. 215/2024 dated 10.07.2024 u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 34 of Indian Penal Code submitted by Police Station Police Outpost CSEB, Police Station Civil Lines Rampur (C.G.) (Annexure P/2). (3) Quash the order dated 22.07.2024 passed in Criminal Case No. 2561/2024 whereby, the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba Distt. Korba has taken cognizance of the case pursuant to abovementioned chargesheet. (4) Quash the entire criminal proceeding in criminal proceeding in Criminal Case No. 2561/2024 pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.). (5) Pass any other order in view of the special facts and circumstances mentioned in the present petition, in the interest of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 31.10.2020, the complainant submitted a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Korba. It was alleged that the complainant's relative, namely Mahesh Mittal, resident of Lailunga, District Raigarh, intended to purchase a Tata vehicle in the year 2018. At that time, Sharad Jaiswal represented that he could arrange vehicle financing through his contacts with the officials of Tata Motors 3 Finance Ltd., Korba Branch. He informed Mahesh Mittal that financing could be arranged if a guarantor furnished certain documents, including an Aadhaar card, vehicle documents, bank statement, PAN card and photographs. Accordingly, Mahesh Mittal obtained the complainant's documents for the limited purpose of making him a guarantor for the vehicle being purchased by Mahesh. It was further alleged that the complainant neither knew Deepmala Jaiswal and Anil Jaiswal nor had agreed to stand as their guarantor. He further alleged that he had never signed any loan agreement in their favour. According to the complainant, the officials/employees of Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Korba Branch, in connivance with Sharad Jaiswal, Deepmala Jaiswal and Anil Jaiswal, fraudulently used his documents and forged and fabricated documents to obtain finance for a Hyva vehicle bearing registration No. OD-09-D-9893 in the names of Deepmala Jaiswal and Anil Jaiswal, without his knowledge or consent. It was also alleged that, after receiving calls from Tata Motors Finance Ltd. regarding the said loan, the complainant submitted written complaints before Police Station Kawardha on 06.03.2019 and 08.02.2020. Subsequently, although Deepmala Jaiswal and Anil Jaiswal settled the matter with the finance company and deposited certain instalments, an amount of 57,100/- remained ₹ outstanding. The complainant alleged that his name continued to be reflected as a guarantor and defaulter on credit-status websites, adversely affecting his creditworthiness and preventing 4 him from obtaining loans. On the basis of the complaint submitted before the Superintendent of Police, Korba, an FIR was initially registered against Anil Jaiswal, Deepmala Jaiswal, Sharad Jaiswal and the then officials of Tata Motors Finance Ltd., T.P. Nagar, Korba, under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the charge-sheet so filed, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba, District Korba, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences. Hence, this petition has been filed by the accused/ petitioners with the aforequoted prayers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and that the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation do not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioners. It is contended that the dispute essentially arises out of a vehicle-finance transaction and that the petitioners have been unnecessarily roped into the criminal proceedings. It is further submitted that the complainant himself had voluntarily furnished his documents for the purpose of standing as guarantor in respect of the vehicle proposed to be purchased by Mahesh Mittal, but, the complainant subsequently disputed the use of his documents in relation to the vehicle bearing registration No. OD-09-D-9893 5 and alleged that he had not consented to stand as guarantor for the loan availed by Deepmala Jaiswal and Anil Jaiswal. It is argued that merely because the complainant's name was reflected as a guarantor in the records of the finance company, no criminal liability can automatically be fastened upon the petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant has not specifically attributed any overt act to the petitioners demonstrating that the petitioners had dishonestly induced the complainant, fabricated any document, used any forged document as genuine, or misappropriated any property entrusted to him. It is argued that the essential ingredients of Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 409 of the IPC are therefore not made out against the petitioners. It is also submitted that the dispute relates to a loan transaction which was subsequently settled between the concerned borrowers and the finance company and certain instalments were also deposited. The continuation of the criminal proceedings, therefore, according to learned counsel, would amount to abuse of the process of law. Learned counsel submits that even if the allegations contained in the FIR and charge-sheet are taken at their face value, the same do not make out the offences alleged against the petitioner and, therefore, the proceedings deserve to be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the allegations made in the complaint and the FIR, 6 when read as a whole, clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences. It is submitted that the complainant has specifically alleged that his documents were misused without his knowledge and consent for obtaining finance in respect of a Hyva vehicle bearing registration No. OD-09-D-9893 in the names of Deepmala Jaiswal and Anil Jaiswal. Learned State counsel further submits that the matter was investigated by the police and, after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 and 34 of the IPC. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba, upon consideration of the charge-sheet and the material collected during investigation, has taken cognizance of the offences. At this stage, this Court is not required to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or conduct a mini-trial to determine whether the prosecution would ultimately result in conviction. 6. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. The scope of interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is well settled. The power is intended to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, but such power is required to be exercised sparingly and with due circumspection. 8. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Supreme Court has illustrated the categories of cases in which 7 interference may be justified, including cases where the allegations, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute any offence. At the same time, the said principles do not confer upon the High Court jurisdiction to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence at the stage of quashing. 9. In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, the Supreme Court reiterated that, while considering a prayer for quashing of criminal proceedings, the Court is required to examine whether the allegations in the FIR, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Court should not ordinarily embark upon an inquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations or conduct a mini-trial. The power of quashing is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances. 10. 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. 11. In the present case, the allegations in the complaint and the FIR, if taken at their face value, are that the complainant's documents were obtained for a specific purpose and were thereafter allegedly utilized, without his knowledge and consent, in connection with a vehicle-finance transaction relating to the Hyva vehicle bearing registration No. OD-09-D-9893. It is specifically alleged that the documents were used for obtaining finance in the names of Deepmala Jaiswal and Anil Jaiswal and that the complainant had neither consented to stand as their guarantor nor executed any loan agreement in their favour. 12. The allegations are not confined merely to a dispute regarding repayment of a loan. They also contain allegations of use of the complainant's documents, fabrication/forgery and utilization of such documents in connection with obtaining finance. After investigation, the police have filed a charge-sheet invoking Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 and 34 of the IPC. Thus, the 9 prosecution is founded upon allegations which, at least prima facie, disclose the ingredients of cognizable offences warranting investigation and consideration by the trial Court. 13. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no specific overt act attributable to the petitioner and that the ingredients of the offences are not established, essentially requires an examination of the material collected during investigation and the defence of the petitioner. Such an exercise would amount to appreciation of evidence and conducting a mini- trial, which is impermissible in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The Court, at this stage, is not required to determine whether the prosecution will ultimately succeed or whether the material collected during investigation would result in conviction. 14. Likewise, the fact that the borrowers may have subsequently settled the outstanding loan account with the finance company or deposited certain instalments cannot, by itself, obliterate the allegations relating to the alleged misuse of the complainant's documents, forgery and cheating. The alleged settlement concerning repayment of the financed amount does not, at this stage, furnish a sufficient ground for quashing the criminal proceedings where the allegations disclose offences which require adjudication upon evidence. 15. It is also significant that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba, has already taken cognizance of the offences on the basis 10 of the charge-sheet submitted by the investigating agency. At this stage, the Court is required to ascertain whether the allegations and the material collected disclose a prima facie case. The sufficiency of such material for securing conviction is not the test to be applied while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 16. On a careful consideration of the allegations and the material placed before us, we are of the considered opinion that the present case does not fall within any of the categories recognized in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) warranting exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the criminal proceedings. The allegations cannot be said to be absurd, inherently improbable or such that, even if accepted in their entirety, no offence would be made out. Rather, the allegations disclose a prima facie case which requires adjudication by the competent criminal Court. 17. We are conscious that the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is available to prevent abuse of the process of law. However, as reiterated by the Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), such power has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and quashing of criminal proceedings is an exception rather than the ordinary rule. Where the FIR/charge- sheet discloses a cognizable offence and the allegations require appreciation of evidence, the criminal prosecution ought not to be scuttled at the threshold. 11 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no ground to interfere with the criminal proceedings at this stage. The questions raised by the petitioner regarding the authenticity of the documents, his alleged role in the transaction, the circumstances in which the documents came to be used, and the applicability of the individual penal provisions are matters which may appropriately be considered by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. We express no opinion on the merits of the case. 19. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. 20. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein are confined to the consideration of the prayer for quashing of the criminal proceedings and shall not prejudice the petitioner or any other accused at the stage of trial. The learned Trial Court shall decide the case strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of the evidence led before it, uninfluenced by any observation made in this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra