1 CGHC010320212026 2026:CGHC:37267-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2195 of 2026 Ismile Meman S/o Shri Usman Meman Aged About 63 Years R/o Devri Chorha, Thana Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, C.G. ... Petitioner versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, C.G. ... Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate For Respondent /State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 20.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharariya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the following prayer :- “A. That, the hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/ set aside the FIR no. 665/2025 (Annexure ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 A1) dated 14.10.2025 u/s 420 of IPC registered at Police Station Ratanpur, district Bilaspur, C.G. with respect to the petitioner. B. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside /quash the charge sheet/ final report no. 718 / 25 (Annexure A2) date 15/12/25 submitted by the Police of Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur. C. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside /quash the criminal proceedings in criminal case number 4296/2025 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.” 3. The brief facts of the case, as alleged by the prosecution, are that the complainant lodged a complaint on 14.10.2025 alleging that the applicant/accused, on 10.07.2007, by allegedly producing/ manipulating a false document, got the land bearing Halka No. 12, Nagoi, Tahsil Beltara, District Bilaspur (C.G.), Khasra No. 605, transferred in his name and thereafter sold the said property to another person. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR No. 665/2025 was registered at the concerned Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and investigation was taken up. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet/final report No. 718/2025 dated 15.12.2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.). Thereafter, the learned JMFC took cognizance and registered Criminal Case No. 4296/2025 and the case is fixed for framing of the charge. Being aggrieved by the 3 same, the applicant has preferred present petition with the aforequoted prayers. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings are wholly misconceived, unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed. It is submitted that the alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 10.07.2007, whereas the FIR came to be lodged only on 14.10.2025, after an inordinate and unexplained delay of approximately 18 years. Such an extraordinary delay, according to learned counsel, casts serious doubt upon the prosecution story and renders the allegations highly doubtful. It is further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that he allegedly produced/manipulated a false document and got the land bearing Khasra No. 605, situated at Halka No. 12, Nagoi, Tahsil Beltara, District Bilaspur (C.G.), transferred in his name and thereafter sold the same to another person. However, the prosecution has failed to demonstrate any material showing that the petitioner had dishonest or fraudulent intention at the inception of the alleged transaction, which is an essential ingredient for constituting an offence under Section 420 of the IPC. 5. From perusal of the order-sheets of the learned Trial Court, it transpires that the charge-sheet was filed on 15.12.2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.), and the learned JMFC took cognizance of the alleged offence and registered Criminal Case No. 4296/2025 on 4 16.12.2025. Thereafter, the matter was fixed on several occasions for hearing arguments on the question of framing of charge, namely, on 13.02.2026, 10.04.2026 and 10.08.2026. However, despite the matter being listed on the aforesaid dates, charges have not yet been framed. 6. It is thus apparent that the criminal proceedings are still at the stage of consideration of the question of framing of charge. The material collected during investigation, including the statements of witnesses and documents forming part of the charge-sheet, is required to be considered by the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage. 7. At this stage, this Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, is not required to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or examine the defence of the applicant as if conducting a mini-trial. The allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation have to be considered for the limited purpose of determining whether a prima facie case is disclosed. 8. The applicant has primarily relied upon the alleged delay of approximately 18 years in lodging the FIR and has submitted that the allegations are false and that no offence is made out against him. However, the effect and explanation of such delay, as well as the genuineness and evidentiary value of the documents relating to the alleged transfer and subsequent sale of the property, are matters which require examination on the basis of the material available before the learned Trial Court. Mere delay in lodging the 5 FIR, particularly when the prosecution has already completed investigation and filed the charge-sheet, cannot by itself be treated as sufficient ground for quashing the entire criminal proceedings. 9. It is also settled that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is required to see whether the material on record gives rise to a strong suspicion regarding commission of the alleged offence. At this stage, the Court is not required to determine whether the prosecution will ultimately succeed after trial. 10. In State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, (2021) 12 SCC 616, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is required to consider whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis of the material placed before it and is not required to conduct a roving or fishing inquiry into the evidence. 11. Similarly, in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the power of quashing criminal proceedings is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and that the High Court should not embark upon an inquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations while exercising such jurisdiction. 12. In the present case, the allegations in the FIR, coupled with the material collected during investigation and the filing of the charge- sheet, cannot, at this stage, be said to be so inherently improbable or absurd that continuation of the criminal proceedings 6 would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The questions raised by the applicant involve appreciation of facts and evidence, which can appropriately be considered by the learned Trial Court at the stage of framing of charge and, if necessary, during trial. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has failed to make out any exceptional circumstance warranting interference with the FIR, charge-sheet and consequential criminal proceedings in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover, the petitioner has also not made the complainant as party in the present petition. 14. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. It is made clear that the observations made herein are confined only to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not prejudice the applicant or the prosecution before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court shall consider the question of framing of charge independently, strictly on the basis of the material available on record and in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra