1 CGHC010217842024 2026:CGHC:35939-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1818 of 2024 1 - Neeraj Chandravanshi S/o Ramsevak Chandravanshi Aged About 54 Years R/o L.I.G. 516, Housing Board Colony, Dadar Road, Charoda, Post Bmy, Charoda, District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Narayani Chandravanshi W/o Neeraj Chandravanshi Aged About 52 Years R/o L.I.G. 516, Housing Board Colony, Dadar Road, Charoda, Post Bmy, Charoda, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Supela, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Roshan Verma S/o S.S. Verma Aged About 42 Years R/o House No. 407, Zero Road, Shanti Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate For State For Respondent No. 2 : : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.08.14 10:51:30 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13 .08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State/ respondent and Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioner has filed the present CrMP under Section 482 of CrPC, and prayed for the following reliefs:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Chargesheet no. 77/2023 (Annexure P/1) and the resultant proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh vide criminal case no. 1207/2023 arising out of crime no. 38/2023, police station Mohla, District Mohla-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki, in the interest of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2, who is the cousin brother of petitioner No. 1, had borrowed an amount of Rs.7,40,000/- from the petitioners on different occasions. Out of the said amount, respondent No. 2 repaid Rs.4,91,000/- through various bank transactions, leaving a balance amount of Rs.2,49,000/-. When the petitioners demanded the remaining amount, respondent No. 2 allegedly abused, assaulted and threatened them, pursuant to which a complaint was lodged before the concerned police station on 05.03.2022. Thereafter, on 25.04.2022, the parties entered into a 3 settlement and agreed that there was no further monetary dispute between them and that they would withdraw their respective complaints. Despite the said settlement, respondent No. 2 subsequently lodged an FIR against the petitioners under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC at Police Station Mohala, District Mohla-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki, pursuant to which charge-sheet was filed and Criminal Case No.1207/2023 came to be registered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambagarh Chowki. The parties have also instituted civil proceedings concerning the alleged monetary transactions. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing Cr.M.P. No.1388/2024 seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.06.2024 with liberty to file a fresh petition with proper prayers. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petition contending that the dispute is essentially civil and monetary in nature, that the parties had already settled their dispute, and that the criminal proceedings have been initiated by giving a criminal colour to a civil dispute. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case arising out of a purely monetary and civil dispute between the parties. It is submitted that respondent No.2, being the cousin brother of petitioner No.1, had borrowed a total amount of Rs.7,40,000/- from the petitioners, out of which Rs.4,91,000/- was repaid, and when the remaining amount of Rs.2,49,000/- was demanded, respondent No.2 allegedly threatened and abused the petitioners. It is further submitted that the parties 4 subsequently entered into a settlement agreement resolving the monetary dispute, yet respondent No.2 lodged the impugned FIR under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC and also instituted a civil suit for recovery of money. Thus, the dispute essentially pertains to recovery of money and is predominantly civil in nature, and the ingredients of cheating or any other criminal offence are not made out against the petitioners. It is argued that continuation of the criminal proceedings, despite the pending civil dispute and prior settlement between the parties, amounts to an abuse of the process of law and that the proceedings have been initiated with mala fide intention to harass and pressurize the petitioners. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and quash the impugned criminal proceedings in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, Learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the present petition seeking quashment of Criminal Case No.1207/2023 arising out of Crime No.38/2023 registered at Police Station Mohla, District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh, for the offence under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC, is not maintainable as the final report/charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent criminal Court and the matter is pending consideration before the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet contains prima facie incriminating material against the petitioners, and the defence raised by them involves disputed questions of fact which can be properly appreciated only after recording and evaluating the evidence during trial. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional 5 circumstances, whereas no such circumstance is made out in the present case. Learned State counsel, therefore, submits that the allegations and material collected during investigation disclose the commission of the alleged offences and the continuation of the proceedings does not amount to abuse of the process of law; hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. From perusal of the record, it appears that the dispute between the parties essentially arises out of certain monetary transactions. The petitioners have specifically pleaded that respondent No.2, being the cousin brother of petitioner No.1, had borrowed an amount of Rs.7,40,000/- from the petitioners on different occasions and that an amount of Rs.4,91,000/- was subsequently repaid through banking transactions. It is further evident from the record that the parties had entered into a settlement agreement dated 25.04.2022 in respect of the monetary dispute. Thereafter, respondent No.2 lodged the impugned FIR under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC and, simultaneously, instituted a civil suit for recovery of money. The petitioners have also instituted civil proceedings in respect of the same monetary transaction. Thus, the genesis of the dispute is evidently a financial transaction between the parties and the parties have already invoked the civil remedy in respect thereof. 8. At this stage, it is necessary to examine whether the allegations, even if taken at their face value, disclose the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 420 of the IPC. The essential requirement for 6 constituting the offence of cheating is the existence of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the very inception of the transaction and mere subsequent failure to fulfil an obligation or non-payment of money would not, by itself, constitute the offence of cheating. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and Others v. State of Bihar and Another, (2000) 4 SCC 168, has held that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement and that mere breach of promise cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention existed right from the beginning of the transaction. The same principle has subsequently been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Mahajan v. Bhor Industries Ltd. and Another, (2005) 10 SCC 228, wherein it was held that where the substance of the allegations discloses a simple civil dispute and the requisite averments constituting cheating are absent, continuation of criminal proceedings would not be justified. 10. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that there is no specific allegation or material demonstrating that, at the inception of the alleged transaction, the petitioners had any fraudulent or dishonest intention to deceive respondent No.2 or to induce him to part with any property. On the contrary, the material placed on record indicates that the transactions between the parties were monetary in nature and that substantial amounts were admittedly transferred between their respective bank accounts. The subsequent dispute regarding repayment of the alleged outstanding amount, in the 7 absence of the foundational element of dishonest intention at the inception, cannot by itself constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC. 11. It is also significant that the parties had entered into a settlement dated 25.04.2022 concerning the monetary dispute and thereafter both sides have approached the competent Civil Court in relation to their respective claims for recovery of money. The existence of civil proceedings, by itself, may not invariably be a ground for quashing a criminal case where the ingredients of a criminal offence are otherwise made out. However, in the present case, the nature of the allegations, the documentary material regarding the monetary transactions, the settlement between the parties and the absence of any specific allegation of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception, taken cumulatively, indicate that the criminal proceedings have been initiated in respect of a dispute which is predominantly civil and monetary in nature. 12. The mere filing of a charge-sheet does not create an impediment to the exercise of inherent jurisdiction where the material collected during investigation, even if accepted in its entirety, fails to disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offence. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court is intended to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. In the present case, permitting the petitioners to undergo a criminal trial for an essentially monetary dispute, when the foundational ingredients of cheating are absent, would serve no useful purpose and would amount to allowing the criminal process to be used for settling a civil dispute. 8 13. The case also falls within the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly the category where the allegations made in the FIR/complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute the offence alleged and the category where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can, therefore, be exercised in an appropriate case to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. 14. Consequently, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the admitted monetary nature of the transaction, the existence of civil proceedings between the parties, the settlement entered into between them and, most importantly, the absence of the necessary allegation/material showing fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners at the inception of the transaction, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 15. Accordingly, the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed. The criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No.38/2023 registered at Police Station Mohla, District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC, and consequential Criminal Case No.1207/2023 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambagarh Chowki, District 9 Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, are hereby quashed qua the present petitioners. 16. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the respective civil claims of the parties, which shall be adjudicated by the competent Civil Court in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika