1 2026:CGHC:15701-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 967 of 2026 Sumit Verma S/o Shatruhan Verma Aged About 32 Years R/o Bherampurkala Chowki Jalbandha District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) 2. Mahendra Deshmukh S/o Videshi Ram Deshmukh Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No. 20, Rashim Devi Colony, P.S.- Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, 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 07 .04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.04.07 17:45:18 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “i. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned First Information Report (FIR) No. 390 of 2023 registered at Police Station Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan- Gandal (C.G.) for offences under Section 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, in the interest of justice. ii. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the entire charge-sheet No. 359 of 2023 filed on 22.10.2023 for offences under Section 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, in the interest of justice. iii. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the order taking cognizance dated 27.10.2023 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Khairagarh Civil, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). iv. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the entire criminal proceedings of the criminal Case No. 932 of 2025, (State of C.G. vs. Sumit Verma pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Khairagarh Civil, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the 3 prosecution case, a written complaint was lodged by the complainant Mahendra Deshmukh before Police Station Khairagarh on 02.09.2023 alleging that the petitioner, being a grain merchant, had entered into a transaction for purchase of gram (chana) collected by the complainant and his relatives. It is alleged that the parties agreed at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per quintal and about 32 tons of gram was transported through various trucks on 11.05.2022, for which an advance amount of Rs. 5,25,000/- was paid, with an assurance to pay the remaining amount within 20–25 days. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the dispute arises out of a commercial transaction and there was no dishonest intention at the inception. It is contended that in the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., the complainant himself admitted that the petitioner had issued three cheques on 10.06.2023, which were dishonoured on 02.08.2023 due to the account being blocked. However, this material fact has been deliberately omitted in the FIR, which was lodged after a considerable delay, thereby reflecting malafide intention. He would submit that even if the entire allegations are taken at their face value, the same would at best constitute a civil dispute relating to non-payment of consideration and do not disclose the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC, as there is no element of fraudulent or dishonest inducement from the very beginning. It is further submitted that the complainant has already initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which also indicates the civil nature of the dispute. 4 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the FIR has been registered mechanically to pressurize the petitioner and is a clear abuse of the process of law. It is also contended that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, have not been followed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rikhab Birani & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 823, wherein, relying upon Sharif Ahmed & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 726, it has been held that to constitute an offence of cheating, dishonest intention must exist at the time of entering into the transaction and a mere breach of contract would not give rise to criminal prosecution. 6. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that even if the entire charge-sheet is accepted as it is, no offence is made out against the petitioner and the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law, and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the present case discloses serious allegations of cheating, wherein a substantial quantity of agricultural produce was taken by the petitioner on the assurance of payment, however, the balance amount has not been paid till date. It is submitted that despite repeated 5 demands, the petitioner failed to honour his commitment and even the cheques issued by him were dishonoured, which prima facie establishes dishonest conduct on his part. It is further contended that the petitioner is attempting to give a civil colour to what is essentially a criminal act. The investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed after due application of mind, and the learned trial Court has already taken cognizance. It is argued that at this stage, no interference is warranted and the defence sought to be raised by the petitioner cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’). 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the material placed on record. 9. Upon due consideration, this Court finds that the allegations made in the FIR, coupled with the material collected during investigation, disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner pertain to disputed questions of fact, including the nature of the transaction and the intention of the parties, which cannot be adjudicated in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 10. This Court is also of the considered opinion that merely because the transaction has a commercial flavour, the same would not by itself absolve the petitioner of criminal liability, particularly when the allegations, if taken at their face value, indicate dishonest intention and inducement. The plea sought to be raised by the petitioner that the 6 dispute is purely civil in nature cannot be accepted at this stage. 11. Further, from a perusal of the order-sheets of the learned trial Court, it is evident that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. The record reflects that he has been consistently avoiding the proceedings before the trial Court by filing repeated applications, thereby delaying the framing of charge. Such conduct clearly demonstrates that the petitioner has adopted dilatory tactics to stall the trial and has now invoked the jurisdiction of this Court with oblique motives. 12. In the considered view of this Court, such conduct disentitles the petitioner from any discretionary relief under Section 528 of the BNSS. The The inherent powers of this Court are to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and not in favour of a litigant who is attempting to misuse the process of law. 13. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The present petition, being devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed on this ground alone. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan