Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
CGHC010351202025
2026:CGHC:37368
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2929 of 2025 1 - Jitendra Solanki S/o Mahendra Solanki, Aged About 48 Years R/o A-12, Nirupam Estate, Phase - 1, Near Police Station - Baghsewniya, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.) 2 - Mahendra Solanki S/o Late Gulab Singh Solanki, Aged About 73 Years R/o A-11, Nirupam Estate, Phase - 1, P.S. - Near Baghsewniya, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.) 3 - Elephant Works Private Limited, R/o A-12, Nirupam Estate, Phase-1, Police Station - Baghsewniya, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.)
--- Petitioner(s) versus Govinda Traders Through Its Propriters Devratan Tapdiya S/o Late Lakshmichand Tapdiya, R/o Durg Road, Ward No. 17 Parshuram Ward, Bemetara, Police Station, Tehsil And District - Bemetara (C.G.)
--- Respondent(s) with CRMP No. 2708 of 2025 1 - Jitendra Solanki S/o Mahendra Solanki Aged About 48 Years R/o A- 12, Nirupam Estate, Phase- 1, Near Police Station- Baghsewniya, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.) 2 - Mahendra Solanki S/o Late Gulab Singh Solanki Aged About 73 Years R/o A- 11, Nirupam Estate, Phase- 1, P.S- Near Baghsewniya, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.) 3 - Elephant Works Private Limited R/o A- 12, Nirupam Estate, Phase- 1, P Near Police Station- Baghsewniya, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.)
---Petitioner(s) Versus Govind Traders Through Its Propriters Devratan Tapdiya S/o Late Lakshmichand Tapdiya, R/o Durg Road Ward No. 17 Parshuram Ward, Bemetara, Police Station- Tehsil And District- Bemetara (C.G.)
... Respondent For Applicants : Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocte. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order on Board 20/08
/2026
1. Both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have been preferred by the petitioners assailing the common order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) in ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2026.08.21 10:42:51 +0530
Criminal Revision Nos. 29/2025 and 27/2025, whereby the orders dated 16.05.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) in Criminal Case Nos. 1648/2022 and 1676/2022 have been affirmed.
2. The facts, as reflected from records, are that on 01.04.2022 an agreement was executed between the complainant and the firm of the accused in respect of export of wheat to Bangladesh. Under the terms of the agreement, the complainant was required to invest a sum of Rs. 55,00,000/-. Pursuant thereto, the complainant transferred a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 02.04.2022, Rs. 24,00,000/- on 03.04.2022 and Rs. 30,00,000/- on 02.05.2022 from his bank account maintained with Axis Bank, Hatmuri, District Bemetara, towards the agreed investment, thereby made a total payment of Rs.55,00,000/- to the account of the accused.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that due change in policy of the Central Government, the proposed export arrangement could not be acted upon, therefore, the complainant demanded his amount which has been paid by them but the same has not been refunded which has insisted the complainant to initiate the criminal proceedings.
4.
Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the complainant’s evidence has already been recorded and one of the accused’s evidence has been recorded, as such the trial is at the stage of final conclusion which is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners also. 5. Since the criminal proceedings are already at an advanced stage as during pendency of these petitions, the complainant has concluded his evidence and the petitioners have also examined one witness, thus, the trial is at the verge of conclusion. As such, at this stage, the controversy essentially involves appreciation of the evidence and determination of the factual question as to whether the ingredients of the alleged offence are established against the petitioners and the same within the domain of the learned trial Court. 6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case Niharika Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others [(2021) 19 SCC 401] has reiterated that the High Court should ordinarily exercise restraint in
interfering with investigation or criminal proceedings and should permit the competent court or investigating agency to proceed in accordance with law. The power of quashing or interference is required to be exercised sparingly and with due caution, particularly where disputed questions of fact are involved. 7. In the present case, the defence raised by the petitioners, including the contention regarding change in Government policy and repayment of the amount allegedly received from the complainant, are matters which requires consideration on the basis of the evidence led before the trial Court. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake a detailed appreciation of the evidence or record a finding on the disputed factual aspects, particularly when the trial has substantially progressed and is nearing conclusion. 8. Having regard to the stage of the proceedings and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by interfering with the proceedings at this juncture as any interference at this stage may result in further delay in conclusion of the trial. 9. However, considering that the proceedings arise out of complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the trial is already at an advanced stage, the learned trial Court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the proceedings expeditiously. 10.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, the defence of the petitioners, the alleged repayment of the amount, or the evidentiary value of the material available on record. All such questions are left open to be considered by the learned trial Court independently, strictly on the basis of the evidence available on record and in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, both the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions stand disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun