1 CGHC010153132024 2026:CGHC:36545-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1156 of 2024 Vishal Singh S/o Chandrashekhar Prasad Aged About 44 Years R/o Flat No. 206, Block-A, Surya Residency, Junwani, Chowki, Smriti Nagar, Police Station- Supela Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O5cer Police Station - Smriti Nagar / Supela, District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Jems Nechchikot S/o Late Shri N.T. Joseph Aged About 56 Years R/o Shop No. 50, Sector - 01, Bhilai, Police Station Bhilai Bhatthi, District Durg (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 17/08/2026 1. Heard Ms. Fouzia Mirza, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2 2. By this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No. 200/2023 registered at Police Station, Supela District Durg, and charge sheet bearing No. 209/2023 ?led on 27.04.2023 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, and the entire criminal proceedings pending in Criminal Case No. RCC/3940/2023 arising out of the aforesaid crime number. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that respondent No. 2/complainant is the proprietor of a ?rm namely, Holysun Logistic. The father of the petitioner, namely, Chandrashekhar Prasad Singh, proprietor of M/s. Shiv Shakti Enterprises, was awarded a contract by Bhilai Steel Plant, Steel Authority of India Limited, for carrying out mining work at Dallirajhara Mines. For execution of the said contract, Chandrashekhar Prasad Singh approached respondent No. 2 and, pursuant to the negotiations between them, an agreement was executed on 17.11.2018, whereby the work was sub-contracted to respondent No. 2. It is alleged that Chandrashekhar Prasad Singh deliberately concealed the fact that the contract awarded to him was not transferable or capable of being sub-contracted to any third party, and despite such restriction, he unlawfully sub-contracted the work to respondent No. 2. It is further alleged that, up to July 2019, Chandrashekhar Prasad Singh got work executed through respondent No. 2 to the tune of approximately Rs. 1.70 crores. For execution of the said work, a number of vehicles were engaged on hire, for which an amount of Rs. 1,93,36,333/- became payable towards their hire charges. The said amount was paid by Chandrashekhar Prasad Singh after receiving the requisite funds from respondent No. 2. However, despite the work having been duly executed and the payments having been made, a sum 3 of Rs. 1,36,01,549/- remained outstanding against Chandrashekhar Prasad Singh, which he allegedly avoided and refused to pay on one pretext or another, thereby cheating respondent No. 2 and causing wrongful loss to him. It was further alleged that Chandrashekhar Prasad Singh has political connections and, owing to his political inCuence, no eDective action was taken against him. Whenever respondent No. 2 demanded payment of the outstanding amount, Chandrashekhar Prasad Singh allegedly threatened him and abused him in ?lthy and derogatory language. It was also alleged that Chandrashekhar Prasad Singh has a criminal background and enjoys political patronage and his son i.e. the petitioner has threatened complainant/ respondent No. 2 with physical harm. The complainant/ respondent No. 2 further requested punitive action against the petitioner and his father and for recovery of his hard- earned money. On the aforementioned allegation the FIR has been registered against the petitioner and his father on 03.03.2023 at Police Station, Supela Chowki, Smriti Nagar, District Durg. 4. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been ?led against the petitioner and his father for the oDences under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC on 27.04.2023. 5. Ms. Fouzia Mirza, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that merely because the petitioner is the son of Chandrashekhar Prasad Singh, proprietor of M/s. Shiv Shakti Enterprises and he had signed the agreement entered into between Shiv Shakti Enterprises and Holysun Logistics in the capacity of a witness, the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused. The petitioner has nothing to do with the business of M/s. Shiv Shakti Enterprises and the sole proprietor of the said ?rm is his father, 4 Chandrashekhar Prasad Singh. Even otherwise, the dispute between the parties is of civil nature relating to recovery of outstanding dues for which the complainant/respondent No. 2 could have ?led civil suit and no element of fraud is involved in the present case. If there has been any breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the complainant/respondent No. 2 and the father of the petitioner, it could have only given rise to a civil dispute and not a criminal case and that too, against the petitioner who is no manner involved. Even otherwise, the complainant/respondent No. 2 vide communication dated 27.12.2019 had himself terminated the agreement dated 17.11.2018 w.e.f. 27.12.2019. After termination of the agreement, the complainant/respondent No. 2 threatened and presurized the father of the petitioner for paying the balance amount regarding which the father of the petitioner also made a complaint at Police Station, Rajhara but the police denied to proceed against the respondent No. 2 and proceeded under Section 155 Cr.P.C. 6. Ms. Mirza further submits that the petitioner was granted regularbail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 04.05.2023 in M.Cr.C. No. 2078/2023. The continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law and as such, this petition be allowed. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Soumya Rai, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that on a complaint being made by the respondent No. 2/complainant, the matter was investigated and prima facie it was revealed that the petitioner and his father have cheated the respondent No. 2/complainant and as such, a charge sheet was ?led before the learned trial Court and the matter is pending consideration. 5 The petitioner has failed to make out any ground which may call for any interference by this Hon’ble Court. The petitioner may take any plea before the learned trial Court and as such, this petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 8. On 08.05.2024, this Court had issued notices to the respondent No. 2 and on that date, the further proceedings of Criminal Case No. RCC/3940/2023 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, was directed to be remain stayed till the next date of hearing. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 03.03.2026 when the counsel for the respondent No. 2/complainant had also appeared and on his request, two week’s time was granted to ?le return and the petitioner was also granted a week’s time to ?le rejoinder, if any and the interim order passed earlier continued. 9. This petition has been pending since April, 2024 but despite lapse of more than two years, the respondent No. 2/complainant has not ?led his return till date. However, Mr. Amiya Kant Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that there is substance in the FIR lodged by the complainant/respondent No. 2 and this petition deserves to be dismissed as the petitioner and his father have cheated the respondent No. 2/complainant. 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 oDences. 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 oDence or make out a case 6 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. 11. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others {2021 SCC OnLine SC 315}, the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable oDence and is not required to consider the case on merits. 12. In a well-celebrated judgment reported in State of Haryana & Others v Bhajanlal & Others, {AIR 1992 SC 604} the Apex Court has laid down certain guidelines and held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The guidelines are as follows: “(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety to do not prima facie constitute any o!ence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable o!ence, justifying an investigation by police o'cers under Section 156(1) of the Code except 7 under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 156(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any o!ence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable o!ence but constitute only a non-cognizable o!ence, no investigation is permitted by a police o'cer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can every reach a just conclusion that there is su'cient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a speci4c provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing e'cacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala ?de and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 13. A bare perusal of the FIR goes to show that the dispute is of civil nature and the agreement which is alleged to have been entered into between M/s. Holysun and M/s. Shiv Shakti Enterprises was in fact between the father of the petitioner and the respondent No. 2/complainant and the petitioner has nothing to do with the agreement or the works executed by either of the parties. The petitioner had signed the agreement merely as a witness. The dispute between the parties is of civil nature which appears to have been tried to be given a colour of criminal oDence as the respondent No. 2/complainant could not recover the outstanding dues from the father of the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 has alternative 8 remedy of approaching the jurisdictional civil court for recovery of any outstanding dues. 14. Accordingly, the FIR bearing No. 200/2023 registered at Police Station, Supela, District Durg, the charge sheet bearing No. 209/2023 ?led on 27.04.2023 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Durg, and the entire criminal proceedings bearing No. RCC/3940/2023, so far it relates to the petitioner-Vishal Singh is concerned, are quashed. 15. Consequently, this petition stands allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.08.19 18:16:16 +0530