1 CGHC010332472026 2026:CGHC:38273-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2265 of 2026 1. Smt. Supeta Matiyara W/o Shri S.K. Matiyara Aged About 65 Years R/o Mahamai Para, Dhimar Mohalla, P.S. Purani Basti, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Supela Wrongly Mentioned In The Order Sheet) 2. Vijay Sapha S/o Late Jagguram Sapha Aged About 61 Years R/o Mahamai Para, Dhimar Mohalla, P.S. Purani Basti, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. Brijlal Sapha S/o Late Jagguram Sapha Aged About 49 Years R/o Mahamai Para, Dhimar Mohalla, P.S. Purani Basti, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4. Rakesh Sapha S/o Late Omkar Prasad Sapha Aged About 43 Years R/o Mahamai Para, Dhimar Mohalla, P.S. Purani Basti, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 5. Deepak Sapha S/o Omkar Prasad Sapha Aged About 46 Years R/o Mahamai Para, Dhimar Mohalla, P.S. Purani Basti, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 6. Smt Kamla Bai W/o Baishakhu Aged About 61 Years R/o Mahamai Para, Dhimar Mohalla, P.S. Purani Basti, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 7. Smt Dasri Bai W/o Gendlal Farikar Aged About 83 Years R/o Bramhan Para Shri Ramchandra Gali, P.S. Azad Chowk, Raipur District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.08.31 17:34:44 +0530 2 8. Smt Mutan Bai W/o Punuram Dhimar Aged About 75 Years R/o Mahamai Para, Dhimar Mohalla, P.S. Purani Basti, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 9. Smt Heera Bai Dhivar W/o Omkar Prasad Dhivar Aged About 53 Years R/o Tikrapara Dhimar Mohalla, P.S. Purani Basti, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 10. Smt Lakshmin Bai W/o Buddheshwar Dhimar Aged About 46 Years R/o Dumartarai, Chandni, Chowk, P.S. Mana, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 11. Smt Mamta Sonwani W/o Banwari Sonwani Aged About 40 Years R/o Dhimarpara Bhagat Singh Ward, Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) District- Wrongly Mentioned In The Order Sheet) 12. Smt Karuna Bai Dhimar W/o Domar Aged About 51 Years R/o Aamapara Near, Shitla Mandir, P.S. Azad Chowk Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 13. Smt Shakun Bai W/o Vijay Sapha Aged About 56 Years R/o Mahamaipara, Dhimar Mohalla, P.S. Purani Basti Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 14. Smt Saraswati Bai W/o Brijlal Sapha Aged About 52 Years R/o Mahamai Para, Dhimar Mohalla, P.S. Purani Basti, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Patiram Sahu S/o Late Bhuvan Lal Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o Gautiyapara Urkura, P.S. Khamtarai District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) 3 For Petitioners : Ms. Pratibha Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 31.08.2026 1. Heard Ms. Pratibha Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Sumit Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: “i. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition and quash and set-aside the impugned First Information Report No. 110/2025 dated 19.03.2025 and charge-sheet/final report No. 393/2025 dated 15.12.2025 registered at Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, filed before learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Annexure P/1); ii. That the Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash & set-aside the order taking cognizance and framing of charges dated 21.05.2026 (Annexure P/2) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, 4 Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), in Criminal Case No. 56026/2025 for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and further be pleased to quash the entire criminal case bearing Criminal Case No. 56026 of 2025 and consequential proceeding arising out of Crime No. 110/2025 registered at Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Coe, 1860 dated 19.03.2025; & iii. Any others relief may also be granted to the petitioners which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Petitioners are members of one family and are the co-owners/legal heirs in respect of the immovable property bearing Khasra No.1600 admeasuring 0.458 hectare and Khasra No.1717 admeasuring 0.065 hectare, situated at Raipur, Chhattisgarh. It is contended that the rights of the petitioners over the aforesaid property arise from inheritance and co-ownership and that the dispute in question essentially relates to a transaction concerning the development and proposed alienation of the said property. She further submits that FIR No.110/2025 came to be registered on 19.03.2025 at Police Station Purani Basti, District Raipur, for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The investigation subsequently culminated in filing of Charge-sheet No.393/2025 dated 15.12.2025 and registration of Criminal Case No.56026/2025 before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur. 4. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the prosecution 5 case itself proceeds on the basis that the petitioners and the complainant had entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 01.11.2019 in respect of the aforesaid property, the total area being approximately 0.523 hectare, equivalent to about 56,000 square feet, for a consideration of Rs.7,47,60,000/-. It is submitted that the complainant was acting as a broker and, under the arrangement between the parties, was required to procure prospective purchasers for different portions of the property, whereas the petitioners, being co-owners, were to execute the requisite sale deeds in favour of such purchasers upon receipt of the agreed consideration. She would submit that the complainant had undertaken to complete the registration process by arranging the entire consideration within one year from 01.11.2019, i.e. on or before 31.10.2020. The petitioners entered into the arrangement relying upon such assurance. Thus, according to the petitioners, the transaction was essentially commercial in nature and involved reciprocal contractual obligations between the parties, with no fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the Petitioners at the inception of the agreement. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the conduct of the parties subsequent to execution of the agreement is wholly inconsistent with the allegation of cheating from the very inception. The complainant himself has alleged that substantial amounts were paid from time to time between the years 2019 and 2023 by way of cash, cheques and banking transactions to different members of the petitioners' family. During this period, several registered sale deeds were also executed in favour of different purchasers. The fact that the parties continued to act upon the agreement for several years and that various 6 sale transactions were completed, according to learned counsel, demonstrates the existence of a genuine contractual relationship rather than a transaction founded upon deception. Reference has also been made to the agreement concerning Khasra No.1717 admeasuring 0.029 hectare for a consideration of Rs.30,74,000/-, executed in favour of Smt. Manorama Yadav by Petitioners Deepak Sapha, Rakesh Sapha and Heera Bai. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to get the said transaction registered, but the complainant himself is creating hindrance in its registration. It is argued that the existence of such transaction, coupled with the other registered conveyances, further establishes that the petitioners had been acting in furtherance of the arrangement between the parties. The dispute, according to learned counsel, subsequently arose only with regard to the balance land, adjustment of consideration, execution of the remaining sale deeds and reconciliation of the amounts allegedly paid to different members of the petitioners' family. The complainant claims to have paid an aggregate amount of approximately Rs.4,21,84,623/- through cash, cheques and banking transactions against the total agreed consideration of approximately Rs.7,47,60,000/-. It is submitted that whether the amounts were in fact paid, to whom they were paid, how they were required to be adjusted and whether any further sale deeds were liable to be executed are matters arising out of the contractual dealings between the parties. 6. Learned counsel accordingly contends that the entire prosecution is founded upon the Agreement to Sell, receipts, bank transactions, registered sale deeds and other documents relating to the contractual dealings between the parties. No independent circumstance has been 7 brought on record to demonstrate that, at the time of entering into the agreement dated 01.11.2019, the petitioners had a fraudulent or dishonest intention to deceive the complainant. The subsequent conduct of the parties, including the alleged receipt of payments over a period of several years and execution of various registered sale deeds, is submitted to be relevant in determining the absence of such dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. She also pointed out that although the transaction commenced in November, 2019 and the parties allegedly continued their dealings till the year 2023, the complainant submitted the written complaint only on 25.06.2023, which remained under enquiry for a considerable period. The FIR was ultimately registered on 19.03.2025, nearly two years after the complaint and more than five years after execution of the Agreement to Sell. Learned counsel submits that the delay, when considered along with the continuing contractual dealings between the parties, lends support to the petitioners' contention that the dispute is essentially civil and contractual in character. So far as the investigation is concerned, it is submitted that all the petitioners had approached this Court in MCRCA No.489/2025 and were granted anticipatory bail by order dated 08.04.2025. The petitioners duly cooperated with the Investigating Agency and complied with the conditions imposed by this Court. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed, wherein the prosecution witnesses principally comprise the complainant, alleged purchasers, persons connected with the transactions and bank officials whose evidence is primarily intended to establish account statements and banking transactions. 7. Lastly, learned counsel submits that even after taking cognizance 8 and framing of charges on 21.05.2026, the material collected during investigation does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of the IPC against the Petitioners. It is argued that mere failure to perform contractual obligations, non- execution of certain sale deeds or a dispute regarding adjustment and repayment of consideration cannot, in the absence of dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction, constitute an offence of cheating. The allegations against the Petitioners, according to learned counsel, therefore disclose at the highest a dispute arising out of contractual and property transactions and do not make out the ingredients of Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC. On these submissions, learned counsel prays that the FIR, charge-sheet, order taking cognizance, order framing charges and the consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the petition and submits that the allegations in the FIR, as well as the material collected during investigation, prima facie disclose the commission of the alleged offences. It is contended that the investigation has already been completed, charge-sheet has been filed and charges have also been framed by the learned trial Court. According to learned State counsel, the defence of the petitioners regarding the nature of the transaction, payments made between the parties and absence of dishonest intention involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. It is, therefore, submitted that no case for interference is made out and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 9 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 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 Section 528 of the BNSS). 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. 10 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 BNSS). The Hon’ble 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 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 11 during investigation. The Court reaffirmed the test laid down in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor and observed that criminal proceedings can be quashed at the threshold only when the material relied upon by the accused is of sterling and impeccable quality, completely demolishes the prosecution case, remains incapable of being refuted by the prosecution, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. Unless all these parameters are cumulatively satisfied, the High Court ought not to interfere in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, leaving the parties to establish their respective cases before the trial Court in accordance with law. 14. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, we find that the allegations contained in the FIR cannot, at this stage, be said to be so inherently improbable or devoid of substance as to warrant termination of the criminal proceedings at the threshold. The prosecution case is founded upon the transactions between the parties, the alleged payments made by the complainant, the execution and non-execution of various sale deeds and the alleged failure to account for the amounts received. The Investigating Officer, after conducting investigation, has collected material in support of the prosecution case and, finding sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners, has submitted the charge-sheet before the competent Court. 15. The principal contention of the petitioners is that the dispute is purely contractual in nature and that there was no dishonest or fraudulent intention at the inception of the transaction. Reliance has also been placed upon the fact that certain sale deeds were executed and that payments 12 were made over a period of time. However, whether such subsequent conduct completely negatives the allegation of dishonest intention, whether the entire consideration was duly accounted for, whether the petitioners were under an obligation to execute the remaining sale deeds and whether the amounts allegedly paid by the complainant were properly adjusted are all matters which require appreciation of the material and evidence available on record. 16. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake an examination of the defence of the petitioners or record a finding regarding the correctness of their explanation. The plea that the transaction was purely commercial and that the petitioners had no dishonest intention at its inception may constitute a defence before the learned Trial Court, but the same cannot be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS when the prosecution has placed material which prima facie requires consideration at trial. Determination of such disputed questions would necessarily involve appreciation of documentary as well as oral evidence, which would amount to conducting a mini trial, an exercise impermissible in the present proceedings. 17. It is also significant that the investigation has already culminated in filing of the charge-sheet, cognizance has been taken and charges have been framed against the petitioners. The mere fact that the dispute has its genesis in an agreement between the parties or that certain civil remedies may also be available would not, by itself, justify quashing of the criminal proceedings when the allegations and the material collected during investigation prima facie disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences. 13 The existence of a civil dispute and the availability of a civil remedy do not necessarily bar prosecution for a criminal offence, if the necessary ingredients of such offence are otherwise disclosed. 18. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika (supra) and Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not fall within the exceptional category warranting interference under Section 528 of the BNSS. The material relied upon by the petitioners cannot, at this stage, be held to be of such sterling and impeccable quality as would completely demolish the prosecution case. The defence sought to be raised by the petitioners requires consideration on the basis of evidence before the learned Trial Court. It is, therefore, not a case where continuation of the criminal proceedings can be said to amount to an abuse of the process of law. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no justification to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing FIR No.110/2025, the consequential charge-sheet, order taking cognizance, order framing charges and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom. The petitioners shall, however, be at liberty to raise all permissible factual and legal defences before the learned trial Court. The learned Trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law and on the basis of the evidence brought on record, uninfluenced by any observation made in the present order. 20. Consequently, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are 14 only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not influence the learned trial Court while deciding the case on its own merits and in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan