CGHC010031542023 2026:CGHC:36774 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 278 of 2023 1 - Manoj Daga S/o Shri Kedarnath Daga Aged About 54 Years R/o Daga Compound - 24, Lakholi Road Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Jeetendra Jain S/o Jeethmal Jain Aged About 41 Years R/o Klankapur, P.S. Ranchirai Tehsil Gunderdehi, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Bharadwaj, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Judgment on Board 18.08.2026 1. The present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C has been filed by the petitioner for quashment of the Criminal Compliant case No. 722/22 registered by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gunderdehi District – Balod and order dated 20.09.2022 by which charges under Section 420 and 406 of the IPC have been framed against the petitioner. KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2026.08.18 18:40:21 +0530 2. It is the case of the complainant that the accused Manoj Daga is the Managing Director of M/s Vishnu Power Energy Private Limited, Rajnandgaon and accused No. 2 Deepak Khokhar is a commission agent. It is alleged that the applicant through accused No. 2 had purchased paddy from 26.11.2017 to 13.01.2018 for a sum of Rs. 38,54,423/- out of which he paid only Rs. 19,50,000/- and an amount of Rs. 19,04,420/- is remaining. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that from bare perusal of the complaint it prima facie reflects that the applicant has no intention to deceive the complainant. He has accepted in his statement that the complainant has supplied him paddy worth Rs. 38,54,423/- but since, the complainant had supplied poor quality material, therefore, he has withheld the remaining amount. He would further submit that the transaction between the parties is civil in nature, therefore he would pray for quashment of the Criminal Complaint Case and framing of charges under Sections 420, 406 of the IPC against the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that from perusal of the complaint it is quite vivid that the petitioner from the initial stage has no intention to make full payment. He at no point of time, intimated him that the paddy is of inferior quality, therefore, he has committed an offence of cheating and the registration of complaint at this stage cannot be quashed as it is at threshold stage and the defence taken by the petitioner is a matter of evidence therefore, he would pray for dismissal of the present application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant whether the quality of the paddy was poor, whether he has taken steps for intimating the complainant about the quality of the paddy and whether he has no intention of cheating, are all matters of evidence which can be appreciated only after recording of evidence by the learned trial Court. 7. Therefore, I am of the view that the present Cr.M.P. deserves to be disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all his defence before the learned trial Court. Accordingly, the present Cr.M.P. is disposed off with the aforesaid liberty. Learned trial Court is directed to decide the case purely on its merit, in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in the present Cr.M.P. The liberty is also granted to the petitioner and respondent to explore the possibility of settling their dispute before the learned trial Court. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Cr.M.P. is disposed off. The interim order dated 02.03.2023 is vacated. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge kishore