1 2026:CGHC:17972-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1106 of 2026 Gautam Das Manikpuri S/o Late Shri Jagannath Manikpuri Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Thakurdiya, Thana - Bilaigarh, Distt. Sarangarh- Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Balodabazar Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Bhagwati Say W/o Shri Shivcharan Say Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Bazarpara Kasdol, Thana And Tahsil - Kasdol, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 21 .04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.04.22 10:18:23 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘B.N.S.S.’) praying for following relief :- “It, is therefore, prayed that the petition may kindly be allowed and the FIR with chargesheet of Crime No. 18/2026 registered at P.S. Kasdol, Distt. Balodabazar- Bahatpara (C.G.), for offences punishable u/s 420 of Indian Penal Code and the order of taking cognizance dated 07.02.2026 passed in Criminal Case No. 68/2026 with criminal proceedings pending before the Court of JMFC Kasdol, Distt.-Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) may kindly be quashed, in the interest of justice.” 3. Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the entire prosecution story, even if taken at its face value, does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence and is nothing but a colourable attempt to give a criminal hue to a purely civil dispute arising out of an alleged agreement to sell. He contends that the relationship between the parties emanates from a contractual transaction dated 12.04.2015, and the allegations, at best, pertain to non-performance of contractual obligations, for which the appropriate remedy lies in a civil suit for specific performance and not in initiating criminal proceedings for cheating. He further submits that the complainant has failed to demonstrate her readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract, which is a sine qua non for enforcement of an 3 agreement to sell. It is argued that after an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than ten years, the complainant has resorted to filing a complaint before the authorities only to overcome the bar of limitation applicable to civil remedies. Such belated initiation of criminal proceedings, without any contemporaneous grievance, clearly indicates mala fide intention and abuse of the process of law. 4. It is also contended by Mr. Shrivastava that prior to the registration of the FIR, the petitioner himself had approached the police authorities regarding the dispute, wherein the matter was treated as civil in nature, and proceedings under Section 174 of the BNS were initiated. Ignoring this aspect, the police, on administrative directions, proceeded to register the FIR without proper application of mind, thereby vitiating the entire criminal proceedings. He further argues that there is no material collected during investigation to substantiate the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating, particularly the element of dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. On the contrary, the revenue records continue to reflect the petitioner as the lawful owner and title holder of the land, and there is no conclusive evidence to establish that the property has been transferred to any third party. Mere receipt of advance consideration or execution of an agreement to sell does not confer any title upon the complainant. It is lastly urged that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court, and therefore, 4 this Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR as well as the consequential charge-sheet and proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, learned State counsel opposes the petition and supports the impugned action. It is submitted that the allegations made in the complaint, when read in their entirety, clearly disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, and therefore, the registration of the FIR and subsequent filing of the charge-sheet cannot be faulted at this stage. It is contended that the petitioner, after entering into an agreement to sell with the complainant and receiving a substantial amount as advance consideration, dishonestly dealt with the same property, thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to himself, which squarely attracts the ingredients of the offence of cheating. She further submits that the question as to whether the transaction is purely civil in nature or involves criminality is a matter of evidence, which cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under inherent jurisdiction. It is argued that the existence of a civil remedy does not bar criminal prosecution when the allegations prima facie disclose dishonest intention and deception. The contention of the petitioner that the dispute is purely civil is, therefore, misconceived. 6. It is submitted by Ms. Mahilong that the delay in lodging the FIR has been sufficiently explained, inasmuch as the complainant 5 became aware of the subsequent dealings of the petitioner with the land at a later stage, which prompted her to approach the authorities. Moreover, the complaint was subjected to a preliminary inquiry by the competent officer, and only thereafter, upon satisfaction, directions were issued for registration of the FIR. Hence, it cannot be said that the FIR has been lodged mechanically or without application of mind. She contends that during the course of investigation, relevant documents including the agreement to sell and revenue records have been collected, and upon due consideration of the material, a charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, which has already taken cognizance. At this stage, meticulous appreciation of evidence is impermissible, and the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case exists, which is clearly made out in the present matter. As such, the present petition is devoid of merit, and the petitioner is seeking premature interference by this Court in a matter which requires adjudication on evidence during trial. Therefore, the petition for quashing deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the present petition. 8. From perusal of the charge-sheet, it transpires that the prosecution case originates from a written complaint dated 12.07.2025 submitted by the complainant Bhagwati Sai, alleging that the present petitioner, after entering into an agreement to sell 6 agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 2097 admeasuring 1.028 hectares for a total consideration of Rs.8,60,000/-, had received an advance amount of Rs.3,20,000/- and handed over possession of the land to her. It further emerges that despite repeated requests for execution of the registered sale deed, the petitioner avoided the same on one pretext or the other, and subsequently permitted another person, namely Prakash Kumar Sahu, to cultivate the said land, thereby giving rise to the allegation of deception and cheating. 9. The charge-sheet further reveals that the complaint was subjected to a preliminary inquiry by the SDOP, Kasdol, wherein prima facie material was found indicating that the petitioner had acted with dishonest intention, causing wrongful loss to the complainant. Pursuant to directions issued by the Superintendent of Police, an FIR bearing Crime No. 18/2026 under Section 420 IPC was registered, and the matter was taken up for investigation in accordance with law. 10. During the course of investigation, the investigating agency inspected the spot, prepared the necessary panchnamas and site map, and collected relevant revenue records including B-1 and khasra entries from the concerned Patwari. Statements of the complainant and other witnesses were duly recorded under law. The agreement executed on a stamp paper was also seized. On appreciation of the material so collected, the investigating agency 7 came to the conclusion that the petitioner had indeed executed an agreement, received substantial consideration, and thereafter acted in a manner inconsistent with his earlier representation, thereby prima facie establishing the element of dishonest intention. 11. Significantly, the investigation has also clarified that no material was found to substantiate the allegation that the land had been legally transferred in favour of Prakash Kumar Sahu; accordingly, no offence was found to be made out against him. However, insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, the investigating agency has categorically opined that his conduct resulted in wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to himself, thus attracting the offence of cheating. On the basis of the evidence collected, charge-sheet No. 25/2026 dated 05.02.2026 has been filed before the competent Court, which has already taken cognizance. 12. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual matrix, this Court is of the considered opinion that the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner do not merit acceptance at this stage. The contentions raised pertain predominantly to disputed questions of fact, including the nature of the transaction, readiness and willingness of the complainant, and the actual possession and title over the property, all of which require appreciation of evidence and cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. 8 13. It is well settled that at the stage of considering a petition for quashing, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence or to adjudicate upon the veracity of the allegations. If the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during investigation disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the threshold. In the present case, the material on record prima facie indicates that the petitioner, after receiving a substantial advance amount under an agreement to sell, failed to honour his commitment and dealt with the property in a manner suggestive of deception, thereby satisfying the essential ingredients of the offence alleged. 14. The plea of the petitioner that the dispute is purely civil in nature also does not impress this Court. Merely because a civil remedy may be available does not preclude the initiation of criminal proceedings where the allegations disclose the necessary mens rea. The existence of a parallel civil dispute cannot be a ground to quash criminal proceedings when prima facie elements of cheating are made out. Furthermore, the delay in lodging the complaint, as sought to be highlighted by the petitioner, cannot be said to be fatal at this juncture, particularly when the complainant has explained that the cause of action arose upon discovering the subsequent conduct of the petitioner. Such aspects are matters of trial and cannot be conclusively determined in the present proceedings. 9 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, and the charge- sheet discloses sufficient material warranting continuation of the criminal proceedings. Interference at this stage would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution. 16. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. The interim relief, if any, stands vacated. It is, however, clarified that any observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not prejudice the trial Court while adjudicating the matter on merits. 17. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu