1 CGHC010292752022 2026:CGHC:38986-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 529 of 2022 1 - Gopal Agrawal S/o Shyam Lal Agrawal Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Dhurkot, P.O. Dhurkot, P.S. And Tehsil - Dabhra,, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Poonam Agrawal W/o Gopal Agrawal Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Dhurkot, P.O. Dhurkot, P.S. And Tehsil - Dabhra,, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs (Police), Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Superintendent Of Police Janjgir - Champa, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Station House Officer Police Station Dabhra, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - Shashi Bhushan Singh S/o Chandrama Singh Posted As Branch Manager Of Geo Chem Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. 12/b, M.P. Nagar, Zone - Ii, Behind Pragati Petrol Pump, Bhopal, Revenue And Civil District - Bhopal (Complainant), Madhya Pradesh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate. BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.09.05 10:27:39 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble S hri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03.09.2026 1. Heard Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents. 2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 07.09.2021 (Gopal Agrawal and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) passed by the learned Single Judge in WPCR No. 290 of 2018, whereby, the writ petition filed by appellants herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts of the case according to the appellants are that complainant/respondent No. 4, Shashi Bhushan Singh, Manager of Geo Chem Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal, lodged FIR No. 334/2016 on 26.10.2016 at Police Station Dhabhra, District Janjgir-Champa, against the appellants and other co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It is alleged that the appellants, in connivance with the borrower and the Surveyor of Geo Chem Pvt. Ltd., submitted forged storage receipts showing the quantity and quality of rice stored in the godown, on the basis of which commodity loans were availed from the banks. Subsequently, 3 when the borrowers failed to repay the loans, the banks initiated recovery proceedings and directed verification of the stock, whereupon it was found that the actual quantity and quality of rice stored in the godown were inferior to and less than that represented in the storage receipts. The appellant No. 1 had availed a commodity loan of Rs.45 lakhs from IDBI Bank, Raigarh, against 138.94 metric tons of Jawaphool rice, whereas appellant No. 2 had availed a commodity loan of Rs.50 lakhs from HDFC Bank against 52.50 metric tons of Jawaphool rice and 83.65 metric tons of HMT rice. The said rice was allegedly stored in a godown hired by the respective banks through Geo Chem Pvt. Ltd., an authorized agency. Due to default in repayment, the banks initiated proceedings under the Secularization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, which are stated to be pending. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the aforesaid FIR came to be registered against the appellants. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed WPCR No.290 of 2018, whereby, the petition filed by the appellants herein / writ petitioners was dismissed vide order dated 07.09.2021. Hence, this writ appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the commodity loans were sanctioned by the respective banks only after 4 verification of the quality and quantity of the hypothecated rice by the bank officials and the authorized agency, Geo Chem Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the alleged shortage or variation in the stock cannot, by itself, constitute an offence of cheating or forgery against the appellants, particularly when the hypothecated rice was subsequently sold by the bank officials towards recovery of the loan amount. He further submits that the banks had appointed Geo Chem Pvt. Ltd. for supervision and custody of the commodity, and therefore, if there was any shortage, misappropriation or variation in the quality and quantity of the rice, the role of the concerned bank/Geo Chem officials ought to have been examined. The appellants' employees had also lodged a complaint alleging that the bank officials forcibly entered the premises and lifted the rice and paddy without following due process of law. He also submits that they had themselves issued notices and representations to the bank officials alleging criminal breach of trust, cheating and forgery in relation to the hypothecated commodities. The bank had sold the entire hypothecated stock and realized the loan amount, which was also communicated by the bank to the S.D.O., Dabhra. He later submits that the FIR was registered on the basis of vague and indiscriminate allegations and without there being any material prima facie establishing the involvement of the appellants in cheating or forgery. According to the appellants, the investigation was initiated merely on the basis of a fishing and 5 roving enquiry and was influenced by respondent No. 4, an influential person, thereby amounting to abuse of the process of law and colorable exercise of power by the police authorities. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 AIR (SC) 604, the appellants contend that where the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at their face value, do not constitute the alleged offences, or where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of law. On these grounds, the appellants seek quashing of the FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants herein, in which no interference is called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition holding that the 6 allegations contained in the FIR disclose disputed questions of fact concerning the quality and quantity of rice allegedly stored in the godown, the correctness of the Storage Receipt (SR) report, the nature and quality of the rice subsequently auctioned by the bank, and the alleged manipulation or shortage of the hypothecated stock. The learned Single Judge has further held that the documents relied upon by the appellants, including the panchnama and the document dated 20.03.2016, are matters of evidence and their correctness, genuineness and evidentiary value cannot be examined in exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly when such issues require appreciation of evidence and are to be adjudicated during trial. The learned Single Judge, placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kunwar Singh, decided on 30.07.2021 in CRA No.709 of 2021, Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, decided on 13.08.2021 in CRA No.787 of 2021, Priti Saraf v. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in AIR 2021 SC 1531, State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, reported in (2004) 6 SCC 522 and Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, reported in (2013) 3 SCC 330, has held that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., cannot conduct a roving enquiry into disputed facts, appreciate evidence as a trial Court or determine the truthfulness of the allegations at the threshold. The learned Single Judge has also distinguished the judgment 7 relied upon by the appellants in Virupaksha v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 440, observing that the facts of the said case were distinguishable from the present case, as in the present matter there are specific allegations that the appellants obtained credit facilities on the basis of the alleged discrepancy between the stock actually available in the godown and the stock reflected in the Storage Receipt. Consequently, the learned Single Judge concluded that the FIR prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offences and that the disputed questions relating to the quality, quantity and custody of the hypothecated rice, the alleged manipulation of the Storage Receipts and the respective roles of the appellants and the bank/Geo Chem officials require examination on the basis of the material collected during investigation and evidence to be adduced at trial. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge declined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, dismissed the writ petition, vacated the interim relief granted on 02.07.2018 and directed the learned trial Court to proceed with and decide the trial expeditiously, uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned order. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents appended with writ petition as also with writ appeal and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ 8 petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu