CGHC010292532026 2026:CGHC:34132 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1977 of 2026 Lalit Kumar Baghel (Lalit Baghel) S/o Narsingh Baghel Aged About 50 Years R/o Quarter No. 344 E, Risali Sector, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - Prahlad Singh Thakur S/o Late B S Thakur R/o Block 1a, Russian Complex, Sector 7, P.S. Bhilai Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Arvind Kumar Dubey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Ashish Shukla, Addl AG For Private Respondent-2 : Shri Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per R amesh Sinha, Chief Justice 05.08.2026 Heard Shri Arvind Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Ashish Shukla, learned Addl AG for the State and Shri Rahil Arun Kochar, learned counsel for the private respondent-2. 1. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.08.12 10:42:56 +0530 Crmp 1977 of 2026 2 seeking quashment of FIR No.94/2020 registered at Police Station Bhilai Nagar, District Durg for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Charge-sheet No.86-A/2020, the order dated 18.10.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg framing charges against the petitioner in Criminal Case No.2291/2020 and the revisional order dated 20.02.2026 affirming the said proceedings. 2. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs in the present petition:- “1. Quash the FIR No. 94/2020 dated 26.02.2020 in respect of the petitioner. 2. Quash Charge-sheet No. 86-A/2020, filed in connection with Crime No. 94/2020 at Police Station Bhilai Nagar, District Durg, insofar as it relates to the present petitioner, as no ingredient of Section 420 IPC or Section 34 IPC is made out against him. 3. Quash the order dated 20.02.2026 passed in criminal case No. 2291/2020 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, whereby charges have been framed against the applicant. 4. Quash the order dated 20.02.2026 by which the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.” 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant/respondent-2 alleged that he was induced to invest money in an investment scheme floated by one Sher Singh Sethiya on the assurance of lucrative returns. According to the prosecution, the present petitioner introduced the complainant to the principal accused and facilitated such introduction, Crmp 1977 of 2026 3 pursuant to which the complainant invested substantial amounts directly into the account of the principal accused. Thereafter, the principal accused allegedly absconded after collecting money from several investors, resulting in registration of FIR No.94/2020 for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 34 IPC. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the petitioner and the co-accused. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg took cognizance of the offences and framed charges against the petitioner on 18.10.2022. The revision preferred by the petitioner against the order framing charge was dismissed on the ground of limitation by order dated 20.02.2026. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS, primarily contending that he himself is a victim of the alleged fraud, had invested an amount of Rs.5,70,000/- with the principal accused, had never received any money from the complainant and that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated despite there being no material connecting him with the alleged offence. It is argued that the petitioner himself invested Rs.5,70,000/- in the scheme floated by the principal accused and suffered financial loss. According to him, the petitioner merely introduced the complainant to the principal accused without making any false Crmp 1977 of 2026 4 representation, or promise regarding returns. It is further submitted that all monetary transactions were directly between the complainant and the principal accused and no amount was ever credited to the account of the present petitioner. 6. It is further contended that the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating are conspicuously absent, inasmuch as there was neither dishonest inducement nor fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioner at the inception of the transaction. It is also submitted that no material exists to establish common intention under Section 34 IPC and the charge-sheet has been filed mechanically without application of mind. Therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court warranting interference under Section 528 BNSS. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that during investigation sufficient material has been collected indicating the role of the petitioner in introducing the complainant to the principal accused and facilitating the transaction which ultimately resulted in the complainant being induced to part with his money. It is submitted that the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other material collected during investigation disclose prima facie case against the petitioner, warranting trial. 8. It is further submitted that the defence sought to be raised by the petitioner, namely, that he himself was also cheated by the principal Crmp 1977 of 2026 5 accused and that he did not receive any monetary benefit, are disputed questions of fact which can only be adjudicated after appreciation of evidence during trial. At the stage of considering a petition for quashing, this Court cannot evaluate the correctness or otherwise of such defence. Therefore, no interference is warranted. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The scope of interference by the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS) is well settled. At the stage of quashing of an FIR or charge-sheet, the Court is only required to examine whether the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation, if taken at their face value, disclose commission of any cognizable offence. The Court cannot embark upon a meticulous appreciation of evidence nor can it adjudicate disputed questions of fact. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 supp (1) SCC 335 laid down the categories where criminal proceedings may be quashed. The Court observed that:- "103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases, that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the Crmp 1977 of 2026 6 complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." 12. Similarly, in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arvind Khanna (2019)10 SCC 686, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 17 that:- "17. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel on both sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence during trial. The very fact that the High Court, in this case, went into the most minute details, on the allegations made by the appellant CBI, and the defence put forth by the respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court has exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.” 13. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021)19 SCC 401 the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that while exercising jurisdiction for quashing, the High Court is not expected to appreciate evidence or conduct a mini-trial. The Court observed that where the allegations disclose commission of a cognizable offence, the criminal proceedings ordinarily ought not to be interdicted at the threshold. It has been held that:- "13. The power of quashing criminal proceedings has to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and the court cannot be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as Crmp 1977 of 2026 7 to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of allegations made in the FIR/complaint, unless the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion. The extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice. However, the Court, under its inherent powers, can neither intervene at an uncalled for stage nor can it "soft-pedal the course of justice" at a crucial stage of investigation/proceedings. The provisions of Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as "CrPC") are a device to advance justice and not to frustrate it. The power of judicial review is discretionary, however, it must be exercised to prevent the miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave errors and to ensure that stream of administration of justice remains clean and pure. However, there are no limits of power of the Court, but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. (Vide State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha, Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.31 and Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. 32)” 14. Very recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025), while reiterating the settled principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings, has once again emphasized that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised with great caution, circumspection and only in exceptional circumstances. Crmp 1977 of 2026 8 15. In the present case, the principal defence of the petitioner is that he himself was cheated by the principal accused; that he invested Rs.5,70,000/-; that he received no money from the complainant; and that he merely introduced the complainant to the principal accused. These submissions essentially constitute the defence of the petitioner. Whether the petitioner acted innocently or whether he knowingly facilitated the complainant's investment, are disputed questions of fact which require appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. Such disputed factual issues cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. 16. The charge-sheet reveals that the investigating agency, after recording statements of witnesses and collecting documentary material, has formed an opinion that sufficient material exists to prosecute the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 34 IPC. At this stage, this Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial or examine the sufficiency of evidence. The plea that the petitioner himself was also duped by the principal accused may constitute a valid defence during trial, but cannot furnish a ground for quashing the prosecution at its threshold. 17. The allegations in the FIR and the material collected during investigation, when taken at their face value, cannot be said to be so inherently improbable or absurd that no prudent person could reach a conclusion that an offence is disclosed. The case also does not fall within Crmp 1977 of 2026 9 any of the exceptional categories enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra) warranting exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. 18. Accordingly, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Bhajan Lal (supra), Arvind Khanna (supra), Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.(supra), and Pradeep Kesharwani (supra), this Court finds no ground to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS for quashing the FIR, charge-sheet, or the order framing charge. 19. Consequently, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 20. It is made clear that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not influence the trial Court while deciding the case on its own merits. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma