1 CGHC010327162026 2026:CGHC:38303-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 500 of 2026 Khushal Dodeja Son Of Shri Ashok Dodeja, Aged About 36 Years Proprietor of Shri Ganpati Steels Resident of M.I.G. 6, M.P .H.B.Colony, Katora Talab, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Santosh Rai, Son of Late Jagdev Rai, Aged About 59 Years Authorized Signatory Of S.G. Mart Ltd. Having Office At Land Bearing Sr No. 4/1, 4/2, 3/1, 3/1, 3/3 V P O Dhaneli, Nimora, Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Sharma and Mr. Chakresh Tiwari, Advocates For State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate 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 Mr. B.P. Sharma and Mr. Chakresh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for State/respondent No.1. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.08.31 17:29:40 +0530 2 2. Learned State counsel submits that, in compliance with the order dated 24.08.2026 passed by this Court, notice was issued to respondent No.2 through the concerned Superintendent of Police. However, when the notice was sought to be served, respondent No.2 refused to accept the same, and consequently, the notice was affixed/pasted in front of the door of the house of respondent No.2. 3. Though no one appears on behalf of respondent No.2 to contest the matter, considering that this Court has already decided a batch of writ petitions arising out of the same FIR No.464/2025 dated 24.09.2025 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, for the offences punishable under Sections 316 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the present petition is also taken up for consideration and is being disposed of on the same terms. 4. By filing the present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with the inherent and extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner has sough for following relief(s):- “a. A writ and/or an order in the nature of mandamus do issue calling for records pertaining to case of petitioner from respondent concerned for perusal of this Hon'ble Court, if deem fit. b. A writ and / or an order in the nature of appropriate writ or certiorari or any other writ which may this Hon'ble Court deem fit do issue for quashment of the FIR no. 464/2025 dated 24.09.2025 under Section 316, 3(5) of 3 the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur and any consequential proceedings, being abuse of process of court and abuse of process of law and also in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Constitution of India, in the facts and circumstance of the matter in the interest of justice. And/or Alternatively that the petitioner be granted same order and similar protection by modifying or deleting the rider clause or words in the order dated 13.08.2026 passed by this Hon'ble Court passed in WPCR 539 of 2025, WPCR 580 of 2025, WPCR 552 of 2025 and WPCR 616 of 2025. c. Cost of the proceedings. d. Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts & circumstances of case as the case in hand is a way of arm twisting method to recover the alleged due amount of a commercial transaction.” 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of FIR No.464/2025 dated 24.09.2025 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, for the offences punishable under Sections 316 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom. It is submitted that the allegations in the FIR 4 essentially arise out of commercial transactions between the parties concerning sale and purchase of steel products and the alleged outstanding payment. According to learned counsel, the dispute is predominantly civil and commercial in nature and the criminal proceedings have been initiated only with a view to exert pressure upon the petitioner for recovery of the alleged dues. It is further submitted that the allegations contained in the FIR, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the controversy involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the judgment/order dated 13.08.2026 passed by this Court in WPCR No.539/2025 and other analogous matters, wherein, considering the nature of the dispute and the allegations arising out of commercial transactions, this Court has granted relief to the petitioners. It is, therefore, submitted that the present petition may also be allowed on the same terms and conditions as contained in the aforesaid order dated 13.08.2026. 7. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposes the petition. However, he does not dispute that the controversy involved in the present petition is similar to that considered by this Court in WPCR No.539/2025 and other analogous petitions, which were allowed by this Court vide order dated 13.08.2026. He, therefore, submits that the present petition may also be considered in light of the aforesaid order. 5 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. From the pleadings and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is apparent that the dispute giving rise to the impugned FIR emanates essentially from commercial transactions between the parties relating to sale and purchase of steel products and the alleged outstanding dues arising therefrom. The substance of the allegations is substantially founded upon the failure to make payment of the alleged outstanding amount. The petitioner has contended that the dispute is civil and commercial in nature and that the criminal proceedings have been initiated as a means to exert pressure for recovery of the alleged dues. 10. We further find that the controversy involved in the present petition is substantially similar to the controversy considered by this Court in WPCR No.539/2025 and other analogous petitions, which came to be decided vide order dated 13.08.2026. In the said matters, this Court, after considering the nature of the allegations and the surrounding facts and circumstances, had granted relief to the petitioners. The learned State counsel has also fairly submitted that the present matter is covered by the aforesaid decision. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and having regard to the fact that the present petition involves the same FIR, i.e. FIR No.464/2025 dated 24.09.2025 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, and the controversy raised herein is substantially 6 identical to that which has already been considered and decided by this Court in WPCR No.539/2025 and other analogous petitions vide order dated 13.08.2026, we see no reason to take a different view in the present matter. 12. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded in the order dated 13.08.2026 passed in WPCR No.539/2025 and other analogous matters, the present writ petition is also allowed in the same terms. The impugned FIR No.464/2025 dated 24.09.2025 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, for the offences punishable under Sections 316 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom, insofar as they relate to the present petitioner, are hereby quashed. 13. It is made clear that the present order shall operate subject to the same terms, conditions and exceptions, if any, as contained in the order dated 13.08.2026 passed by this Court in WPCR No.539/2025 and the connected/analogous matters. 14. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. 15. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu