45 +0530 Khilendra Kashyap S/o Late Karan Singh Kashyap Aged About 38 Years R/o v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Farasgaon, Kondagaon
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:4405-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 292 of 2025 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.01.24 17:46:45 +0530 Khilendra Kashyap S/o Late Karan Singh Kashyap Aged About 38 Years R/o Village- Korgaon, Police Station - Vishrampuri, Tahsil - Baderajpur, Kondagaon, District - Kondagaon (C.G.). --- (Petitioner) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Farasgaon, Kondagaon, District - Kondagaon (C.G.). 2 - Station House Officer, Police Station Farasgaon, Kondagaon, District - Kondagaon (C.G.).
Legal Reasoning
entirety then also prima facie no offence is made out against the petitioner. The money allegedly taken by the petitioner has been deposited in the company's account which is evident from the email date 19/8/2023 wherein the complainant's mother has acknowledged the fact that she has enrolled herself in QNET and has purchased the product worth Rs.4,50,000. The impugned FIR is lodged by the Respondent no.3, with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance due to personal grudge against the Petitioners, as his mother has sustained loss in the business of multi level marketing for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible. It is a dispute of civil nature which is no criminal element, thus the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed. There is an unexplained delay of One Year and Four Months in lodging the FIR which invariably establishes the fact that the present FIR has been used as a tool to cover the loss suffed by the complaiant in his mother's business by twisting the arm of the petitioner. Thus, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 & 2 / State opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that once the FIR has been registered, it 5 has to be investigated and taken to its logical end. Thus, at this stage, no interference is warranted. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that inherent power in a matter of quashment of FIR has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and when and only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in the provision itself. He would further rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, wherein the Supreme Court has laid down that when a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations made out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR. Therefore, in the light of the above mentioned judgments, the instant petition is absolutely misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in this petition. 7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Neharika Infrastructure 6 Pvt.Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 528 of the BNSS) is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Supreme Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 528 of the BNSS), only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it transpires that F.I.R. discloses the commission of a cognizable offence against the petitioner and hence, no good ground has been raised to interfere in the matter and quash the FIR at this stage as the investigation has to be concluded and taken to its logical end. 7 9. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this petition. The petition lacks merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet
Arguments
3 - Jagdishwar Markam S/o Shri Ayaturam Markam R/o Haldibeda, Sirsikalar, Farasgaon, Kondagaon, District - Kondagaon (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Chief Justice , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 24.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Manish Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General 2 for the respondent No.1 & 2/ State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR No. 171/2024, dated 17/12/2024 (Annexure P/1) registered at P.S.-Farasgaon, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon (C.G.) in the interest of justice.” 3. Prosecution story according to the petitioner is that QNET is a global lifestyle and wellness company that uses a direct selling business model to promote their products. In furtherance of their business model, the QNET company has given their micro franchise to Vihaan Direct Selling India Private Limited, which is engaged in Multi-Level Marketing in India. In pursuance to their core business module of Multi Level Marketing, also known as, Direct Selling Business, in India, the petitioner's mother namely Kaushalya Kashyap has also joined the company as an Independent Representative/Business Owner. In furtherance thereof, the Respondent no.3/Complainant has approached the petitioner to join the business. The petitioner's mother, in a bonafide manner has shared the business model of the company and has referred the name of Complainant's mother for the business. Thereafter, on her own accord, the Complainant's mother, joined the QNET company as an Independent Representative/Business Owner, for which a verification mail was send to the Complainant on 18/8/2023 which contained the LOGIN ID and PASSWORD of the Complainant's mother. On the 3 same date, the complainant's mother purchased certain items from the company for which a total sum of US $ 4800 was paid by her. On 19/8/2023, an email was sent to the complainant's mother to accept the terms and conditions of the business. It is pertinent to mention here that in clause 4 of the email it was specifically mentioned that one Jageshwar (working of behalf of the complainant's mother) has enrolled in QNET and has purchased the product worth Rs.4,50,000. The terms and conditions of doing the business was also attached to the email, which was accepted by the complainant. On 24/11/2023, the complainant's mother purchased certain items from the QNET Company for which the amount paid by her was acknowledged and the commission payable to her was also credited in her account vide emails dated 24/11/2023. The Complainant's mother did not carry forward the business, because of which the complainant created undue pressure on the petitioner. When the petitioner did not succumb to the complainant tactic, then the complainant has lodged the impugned FIR against the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR lodged against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the impugned FIR No.171/2024 registered against the petitioners at Police Station-Farasgaon, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, deserves to be quashed. Bare perusal of the contents of the impugned FIR and a plain reading of the same will make it evidently clear that no offence under section 420 is made 4 out against. Therefore, the impugned FIR, being an absolute after thought and brainchild of Respondent no.3, having no legal substance deserves to be quashed. From the contents of the impugned FIR, it is crystal clear that even if the allegations in the impugned FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in their