1 2026:CGHC:17723-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1088 of 2026 Suraj Upadhyay S/o Onkar Upadhyay Aged About 45 Years R/o Ring Road 01 Kushalpur Chowk Ps D.D. Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Tarbahar, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Jayant Sharaf S/o Shri Kamal Kumar Sharaf R/o B/53, Jain Mandir, Kranti Nagar, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Anju Ahuja, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 20.04.2026 1. Heard Ms. Anju Ahuja, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.04.20 18:26:37 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the impugned FIR No. 219 of 2023 dated 11.08.2023 registered at Police Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to quash the subsequent charge-sheet No. 144 of 2024 and the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6019 of 2024 (State of Chhattisgarh vs. Suraj Upadhyay) currently pending in the Court the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur (C.G.), in the interest of justice and grant any other relief or pass any such other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a reputed businessman and a registered contractor operating under the trade name “Suryoday Construction.” He is a tax-paying citizen with no prior criminal antecedents and has been engaged in infrastructure development within the State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in early 2022, respondent No. 2/complainant approached the petitioner seeking professional engagement. Considering his background in civil works, the petitioner engaged him as a Site Supervisor for a residential project at “Wallfort City,” Bhathagaon, on a fixed monthly remuneration, thereby establishing a purely professional master-servant relationship. 3 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner that during the course of this professional engagement, certain amounts were transferred by the complainant to the petitioner’s firm. These transactions were part of a commercial understanding relating to working capital and business investment and were duly reflected in regular business records. The said transactions were conducted transparently through banking channels, which is wholly inconsistent with any allegation of fraudulent or dishonest intent. Learned counsel submits that disputes subsequently arose between the parties with respect to settlement of accounts and work performance. Owing to such disputes, respondent No. 2, with an ulterior motive to exert pressure and extract an inflated amount, lodged FIR No. 219/2023 dated 11.08.2023, nearly 17 months after the alleged transactions, falsely giving a criminal colour to what is essentially a civil and commercial dispute. 6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during trial in Case No. 6019/2024, the complainant, while deposing as PW-1, made material admissions which go to the root of the matter, including that the alleged payments were made for the purpose of securing government contracts through influence and other illegal means. It is also contended that such an agreement, being opposed to public policy and involving unlawful consideration, is void in law and no legal rights can be claimed thereunder. He further submitted that even as per the prosecution’s own case, the dispute pertains to non-payment of alleged dues arising out of a contractual arrangement. It is argued 4 that a breach of contract or failure to repay money does not constitute an offence of cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown from the very inception of the transaction, which is absent in the present case. 7. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in cross-examination, the complainant admitted that a substantial sum was allegedly paid to secure multiple construction contracts through influence and bribes, thereby rendering the alleged transaction illegal and unenforceable. It is contended that the criminal process cannot be permitted to be used as a tool for recovery of money arising out of an unlawful agreement. He would submit that the conduct of the petitioner establishes bona fides, inasmuch as the complainant was engaged for approximately 11 months and payments were made to him, as admitted by the complainant himself, demonstrating a genuine professional relationship without any dishonest intention at inception. The petitioner has placed on record banking transactions and GST records to demonstrate that “Suryoday Construction” is a legitimate business entity and that all financial dealings were conducted through proper and traceable banking channels, which militates against any allegation of cheating. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the complainant has failed to produce any documentary evidence before the police or the trial Court to substantiate the allegation that the petitioner induced him with promises of government contracts, and 5 therefore the allegations remain bald and unsubstantiated. He further submitted that there is an unexplained delay of more than 17 months in lodging the FIR, which casts serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations and indicates that the criminal proceedings are an afterthought initiated to pressurize the petitioner following a business dispute. 9. In light of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that continuation of the criminal proceedings in Case No. 6019/2024 amounts to an abuse of the process of law, as the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 420 of the IPC are not made out, and therefore, the proceedings deserve to be quashed. 10. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the impugned proceedings do not warrant interference. It is submitted that after due investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed and the learned trial Court, upon consideration of the material on record, has already framed charges against the petitioner, having found sufficient prima facie material to proceed. 11. Learned State counsel further submits that the trial has already commenced and is presently at the stage of recording evidence. It is contended that the allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and, therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage. He further contended that the issues raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, including the nature of the transaction, the intention of the parties, and the role attributed to the 6 petitioner, which can only be adjudicated upon appreciation of evidence during trial. It is submitted that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked to conduct a mini-trial or to assess the sufficiency of evidence. 12. Learned State counsel also submits that the defences sought to be raised by the petitioner, including the plea that the dispute is civil in nature, absence of dishonest intention, and alleged false implication, are matters of defence which are required to be tested during the course of trial and cannot be adjudicated at this stage. 13. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 14. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge or when the trial has already commenced, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of evidence or adjudicate upon its sufficiency. If the material on record discloses a prima facie case, the proceedings ought not to be interdicted. 15. In the present case, the FIR has been registered on the basis of allegations that the petitioner induced the complainant to part with money on the pretext of securing contractual work. The investigation has culminated in filing of a charge-sheet, and the learned trial Court has already framed charges after due consideration of the material on record. 7 16. The contentions raised by the petitioner, including the nature of the dispute being civil, absence of dishonest intention, alleged illegality of the transaction, and delay in lodging the FIR, are all matters which require appreciation of evidence and cannot be conclusively determined at this stage. 17. Whether the petitioner had the requisite mens rea at the inception of the transaction and whether the allegations are ultimately sustainable are issues which fall within the domain of the trial Court. 18. At this stage, this Court cannot embark upon a detailed evaluation of the evidence or adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. 19. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference. 20. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that any observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case, which shall be decided independently by the learned trial Court on the basis of evidence led before it. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan