1 2026:CGHC:15702-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 970 of 2026 Sumit Verma S/o Shatruhan Verma Aged About 32 Years R/o Bherampurkala Chowki, Jalbandha District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Khairagarh District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) 2. Pradeep Verma S/o Motilal Verma Aged About 34 Years R/o Gram Parsuli Op Jalbandha P.S. Khairagarh District- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : 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 applicant. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate, BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.04.07 17:45:18 +0530 2 appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. 2. The present petition has been filed by the applicant with the following prayers: “i. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned First Information Report (FIR) No. 391 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. 355 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. 933 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 applicant submits that as per the prosecution case, a written complaint was lodged by the complainant namely Pradeep Verma before Police Station Khairagarh on 03.09.2023 alleging that the present applicant is a grain merchant engaged in purchasing grains from farmers and small traders and selling the same 3 in the market. It is alleged that the complainant had sold paddy to the applicant for a total consideration of Rs. 46,00,000/-, out of which an amount of Rs. 37,80,000/- was paid. For the remaining amount of Rs. 8,20,000/-, the applicant issued a cheque dated 19.07.2023 bearing No. 002504 drawn on IDBI Bank, Khairagarh, which was subsequently dishonoured. It is further submitted that agreements were executed between the parties from time to time regarding payment of the outstanding amount, and thereafter the FIR came to be registered. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a perusal of the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. reveals material inconsistencies. It is contended that the complainant himself admitted that he had earlier made a complaint on 26.08.2022 before Police Station Khairagarh, wherein time was granted to the applicant and an agreement was executed for payment of the remaining amount within one and a half months. It is further submitted that on 19.06.2023, another agreement was executed and the aforesaid cheque of Rs. 8,20,000/- was issued. However, the fact of dishonour of the cheque has not been mentioned in the FIR, which reflects malafide conduct on the part of the complainant. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the dispute between the parties arises out of a commercial transaction and there was no dishonest intention on the part of the applicant at the inception. It is contended that even if the entire allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation are taken at their face value, the 4 same do not disclose the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC. It is further submitted that the complainant has already initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which clearly indicates that the dispute is civil in nature and is being given a criminal colour only to pressurize the applicant. 6. Learned counsel also contends that the FIR has been mechanically registered without proper application of mind and in violation of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed 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. 7. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel submits that even if the entire charge-sheet is accepted as it is, no offence is made out against the applicant and the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the same deserves to be quashed. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and 5 submits that the present case discloses serious allegations of cheating, wherein a substantial quantity of agricultural produce was taken by the applicant on the assurance of payment, however, the balance amount has not been paid till date. It is submitted that despite repeated demands, the applicant 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 applicant 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 applicant cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’). 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the material placed on record. 10. 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 applicant. The submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant 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. 11. This Court is also of the considered opinion that merely because 6 the transaction has a commercial flavour, the same would not by itself absolve the applicant 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 applicant that the dispute is purely civil in nature cannot be accepted at this stage. 12. Further, from a perusal of the order-sheets of the learned trial Court, it is evident that the applicant 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 applicant has adopted dilatory tactics to stall the trial and has now invoked the jurisdiction of this Court with oblique motives. 13. In the considered view of this Court, such conduct disentitles the applicant 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. 14. 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