1 CGHC010339222026 2026:CGHC:39788-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2382 of 2026 1 - Abhishek Singh Son Of Vijay Kumar Singh Aged About 38 Years Resident Of Ward No. 18 Jawahar Nagar Durg, Plot No. 107 Durg, Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Of Police Station Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Pranjal Tiwari Son Of Pradeep Tiwari Aged About 31 Years Resident Of Bahera, Police Station Bemetra, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ravindra Nath Mukherjee, Advocate For respondent State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Laywer DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sudhir Kumar Order On Board 11.09.2026 Per Narendra Kumar Vyas,J. 1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashment of the FIR No. 0399 /2023 dated 20.07.2023 KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2026.09.11 16:59:04 +0530 2 registered at Police Station – Bemetara , District – Bemetara (C.G.) for commission of offence under Section 420 of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 and also quashment of the proceeding before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Bemetara in Criminal Case No. 5313/2026. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 lodged complaint on 20.07.2023 before the Police Station – Bemetara alleging that he and the petitioner are involved in construction work. The petitioner demanded him Rs. 3,00,000/- which he gave him. The petitioner returned him the amount by the Bandhan Bank cheque No. 00213 dated 20.05.2023. The respondent deposited the said cheque to his account. The Bank informed him that the account of the petitioner has already been closed on 08.07.2021, which has compelled the respondent to file complaint. After usual investigation, the police has registered the FIR for commission of offence under Section 420 of the IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is a case of cheque bounce, therefore, lodging of the FIR under Section 420 of the IPC is per se illegal and would pray for quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings. 4. He would further submit that he has no legal liability to issue cheque. Even otherwise, the respondent has remedy to file complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, therefore, lodging of FIR under Section 420 of the IPC is not tenable and to substantiate his submission he would rely upon the 3 judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Lalit Chaturvedi and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another {SLP (Cr.l. No. 13485 of 2023} and refer paragraph 19 of the judgment and would submit that since this is a case of recovery, the recourse under Section 420 of the IPC is not tenable under the law. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission and would submit that the cheque was bounced due to closure of the account which was well within the knowledge of the petitioner, therefore, prima facie an element of crime in question is available and would pray for dismissal of the present Cr.M.P. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record. 7. From bare perusal of the facts and contents of the FIR, it is quite vivid that from very beginning the petitioner intended to cheat the respondent as he was aware that his bank account was closed and despite this he has issued cheque to the respondent, therefore, submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the respondent has remedy under Civil Law, therefore criminal law in motion is nothing but abuse of process of law, is misconceived and deserves to be rejected. 8. The other submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no legal liability to issue the cheque is a matter of 4 evidence, which can only be determined by the learned trial Court while recording of the evidence. 9. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any good ground for interference in the Criminal Proceeding, 10. Accordingly, the present Cr.M.P. sans merit and it is dismissed. SSd/-d/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Sd/- (Sudhir Kumar) Judge Deshmukh