1 CGHC010323992026 2026:CGHC:37497-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2208 of 2026 Remant Kumar Dewangan S/o Hemant Dewangan Aged About 39 Years R/o- Ward No. 15, Manatola, Mohla, Police Station- Mohla, District- Mohla- Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Of Ps- Khadgaon, District- Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) 2 - Brijbhushan Deshmukh S/o Late Shri Sadaram Deshmukh Aged About 74 Years R/o- Mohla, Police Station- Mohla, District- Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) (Complainant) 3 - Devendra Gupta S/o Suresh Gupta Aged About 42 Years Village- Khadgaon, Police Station- Khadgaon, Ps- Khadgaon, District- Mohla-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.)(Purchaser/victim) 4 - Uderam Sahu S/o Late Cherkuram Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o- Village- Khonteri, Post- Sikosa, District- Balod (C.G.)(Owner/victim) 5 - Bholeshwar Deshmukh S/o Late Pyarelal Deshmukh Aged About 72 Years R/o- Jurripara, Balod, District- Balod (C.G.)(Owner/victim) 6 - Hel Singh Deshmukh S/o Late Pyarelal Deshmukh Aged About 70 Years R/o- Sundara, Balod, Tehsil And District- Balod (C.G.)(Owner And Victim) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 21.08.2026 1. Heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the following reliefs:- “A. The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the of of FIR bearing No. 77/2024 registered at PS- Khadgaon, District- Mohla- Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G) dated 19.11.2024 at 16.45 hours under Sections 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 which was registered at instance of complaint made by respondent No. 02. B. The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the Chargesheet dated 30.04.2026 bearing No. 26/2026 filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambagarh Chowki, Mohla- Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G) filed under Sections 420,468,470, 471, 120B, 201 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 filed pursuant to FIR bearing No. 77/2024 registered at PS- Khadgaon, District- Mohla- Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G) dated 19.11.2024 at 16.45 hours under Sections 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. C. The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the Criminal Proceedings pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohla- Manpur-in Criminal Case No. Ambagarh Chowki (C.G) 141/2026 under Sections 420,468,470, 471, 120B, 201 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860. D. The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the cognizance order dated 23.07.2026 passed in Criminal Proceedings pending before Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohla- Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G) in Criminal Case No. 141/2026 whereby cognisance under Sections 420,468,470, 471, 120B, 201, 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been taken by the Learned Trial Court. E. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which it deems fit and proper.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is engaged in land dealings and works as a land broker, has been arrayed as an accused in 3 FIR No.77/2024 registered at Police Station Khadgaon, District Mohla- Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, initially under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in relation to an alleged transaction concerning certain rehabilitation land situated at Village Murargota. The prosecution case arose from a complaint alleging manipulation of online revenue records and an attempted sale of the land, in which the complainant suspected co-accused Sanjay Mishra. During the enquiry conducted by a Committee constituted by the Collector, it was found that the landowners had executed documents in favour of the petitioner for sale, but the transaction could not be registered as the land was subject to restrictions under Section 165(7)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. Subsequently, the petitioner came to be implicated primarily on the ground that three cheques issued from the account of alleged purchaser Devendra Gupta were deposited in his bank account. The petitioner contends that the said cheques were received towards repayment of a loan/credit facility extended by him to co-accused Sanjay Mishra and that he had no connection with the alleged land transaction. After investigation, charge-sheet dated 30.04.2026 was filed for offences under Sections 420, 468, 470, 471, 120-B, 201 and 34 of the IPC, pursuant to which cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on 23.07.2026 in Criminal Case No.141/2026, giving rise to the present petition seeking quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order and consequential criminal proceedings. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the entire prosecution against the petitioner is based merely upon the fact that certain amounts were credited in the petitioner’s bank account through three cheques issued by co-accused Sanjay Mishra from the account of Devendra 4 Gupta. It is contended that the petitioner had earlier extended a loan/credit facility to co-accused Sanjay Mishra and the said cheques were deposited towards discharge of his liability. The petitioner had neither entered into any agreement with Devendra Gupta nor had any direct or indirect connection with the alleged transaction relating to the land in question. It is further submitted that Devendra Gupta, during the enquiry conducted by the Committee constituted by the Collector, had categorically stated that an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- was paid by him in cash to co-accused Sanjay Mishra and had made no allegation whatsoever against the present petitioner. Even in the material collected during investigation, there is no statement attributing any overt act or dishonest intention to the petitioner. Thus, mere receipt of the aforesaid amounts in the petitioner’s bank account, without any supporting material showing his participation in the alleged conspiracy or land transaction, cannot constitute the offences alleged against him. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the enquiry report itself does not implicate the petitioner and the documents relied upon by the prosecution do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 420, 468, 470, 471, 120-B, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is argued that no sale deed in respect of the land in question was ever registered in favour of any person and, in fact, when the documents were found to be in violation of Section 165(7)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, the same were returned to the office of the Deputy Registrar. The subsequent statement of Devendra Gupta before the police, alleging that certain cheques were issued to Sanjay Mishra and thereafter deposited in the petitioner’s account, does not establish any nexus between the petitioner and the alleged 5 offence. It is therefore submitted that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law, as the material collected during investigation, even if taken at its face value, does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence by the petitioner. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that the impugned FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order dated 23.07.2026 and the consequential 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel, opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the allegations levelled in the FIR, coupled with the material collected during investigation and the statements of the witnesses, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences by the petitioner. It is submitted that during investigation, the statement of alleged purchaser Devendra Gupta was recorded, wherein he stated that cheques issued from his account in connection with the alleged land transaction were ultimately deposited in the bank account of the present petitioner. The bank statements and other documentary material collected during investigation corroborate the movement of the said amounts into the petitioner’s account. Learned State counsel further submits that the enquiry conducted by the Committee constituted by the Collector, the revenue records and the documents relating to the proposed transaction form part of the charge-sheet and disclose circumstances requiring examination during trial. 7. Learned State counsel further submits that at the stage of consideration of a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, this Hon’ble Court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or examine the defence explanation offered by the petitioner regarding the nature of the transactions. It is contended that the plea that the 6 cheques were deposited towards repayment of an alleged loan is a matter of defence, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings for quashing when the charge-sheet contains prima facie material connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. It is therefore submitted that the FIR, charge-sheet and subsequent cognizance order cannot be said to be an abuse of the process of law, and the petition deserves to be dismissed, leaving all questions of fact and the evidentiary value of the material to be considered by the learned Trial Court during trial. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material forming part of the case. 9. The principal question which arises for consideration is as to whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner have made out such an exceptional case as would warrant exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing the FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings at the threshold. 10. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.). 7 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Supreme Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 12. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has authoritatively settled the scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The Apex Court has held that the power to quash criminal proceedings is required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the rarest of rare cases. It has been categorically observed that while considering a prayer for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR, nor can it appreciate the evidence or conduct a mini trial. The Court is only required to examine whether the allegations, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court further 8 emphasized that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the threshold, that investigation into cognizable offences should ordinarily be permitted to proceed unhindered, and that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with great caution and self-restraint, save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in manifest miscarriage of justice. 13. 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. Unless all these parameters are cumulatively satisfied, High Court ought not to interfere in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, leaving the parties to establish their respective cases before trial Court in accordance with law. 14. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra), it transpires that during investigation, the investigating agency has collected material in the form of statements of witnesses, bank account statements and other relevant documents, which prima facie indicate the involvement of the petitioner in the transactions forming the subject matter of the present prosecution. At this stage, the material collected cannot be said to be wholly insufficient or irrelevant so as to warrant exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The explanation of the petitioner that the amounts received in 9 his bank account were towards repayment of a loan extended to co-accused Sanjay Mishra is essentially a disputed question of fact, which cannot be conclusively adjudicated upon in the present proceedings. 15. From perusal of the charge-sheet, it further transpires that the statement of Devendra Gupta, the bank account statements reflecting the disputed transactions and the other documents collected during investigation disclose circumstances which require proper appreciation by the learned Trial Court. The fact that the petitioner was not directly named in the initial complaint or that Devendra Gupta had given a different version before the Committee constituted by the Collector cannot, at this stage, be made the sole basis for discarding the material subsequently collected during investigation. The evidentiary value and credibility of the statements of witnesses, as also the explanation furnished by the petitioner regarding the disputed transactions, are matters which are required to be tested during trial. 16. So far as the contention regarding the enquiry conducted by the Committee constituted by the Collector is concerned, the said report, along with the revenue records, documents relating to the proposed transaction and the material collected by the investigating agency, forms part of the charge- sheet. The prosecution case, therefore, cannot be held to be based solely upon the bank transactions reflected in the petitioner’s account. Whether the petitioner had knowledge of the nature of the transaction, whether the amounts deposited in his account were towards discharge of an independent financial liability of co-accused Sanjay Mishra, and whether the petitioner had any role in the alleged conspiracy or commission of the offences are all matters which require appreciation of evidence and cannot be determined conclusively at this stage. 10 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out for exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The prayer for quashing FIR No.77/2024, charge-sheet dated 30.04.2026, cognizance order dated 23.07.2026 and consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No.141/2026 is declined. 18. It is made clear that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not prejudice either side during the course of trial. The learned Trial Court shall decide the matter strictly on the basis of the evidence led before it, uninfluenced by any observation contained in this order. 19. The petition, accordingly, stands dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra