Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:24769 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1867 of 2025 1. Shamsher Singh S/o Hargu Lal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Jalala Viran, Ps- Nising, Karnal, Haryana versus ... Petitioner SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.06.18 17:32:36 +0530 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Ps - Grp Thana Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.). 2. Jagdish Sonwani S/o Mitthulal Sonwani Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 16, Khairwahi, Tehsil - Gurur, Distt.- Dhamtari, Dhamtari (C.G.). 3. Lileshwari Sen W/o Hemant Sen Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Senchuar, Po- Chhati, Ps. - Kurud, Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.). 4. Manoj Kumar Sahu S/o J.L. Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o E 06/01 In Front Of Sai Uday Maan, Sbi Colony, Tagore Nagar, Ps - Kotwali, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.). 5. Tulsi Ram Nishad S/o Late Bhagirathi Nishad Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Ratesara, Ps- Charama, Distt.- Kanker (C.G.). 6. Umendra Sahu S/o Jairam Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Mokha, Ps- Bhakhara, Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.). 7. Visheshwar Netam W/o Dhur Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o Guhan Dabaripara, Ps- Narharpur, Distt.- Kanker (C.G.). 8. Maan Singh Sahu S/o B. Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Piparchhedi (Wrongly Written In Annexure P/2), Ps - Arjuni, Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.). 9. Shailendra Kumar Sahu S/o Late Sukhit Ram Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Village- Sorid Nagar, Near Kali Mandir, Ps- City Kotwali, Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.). 2 10. Kushal Ram Sahu S/o Bhoklu Ram Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Rudri, Ps- Rudri, Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.). 11. Ravindra Kumar Sinha S/o S.R. Sinha Aged About 34 Years R/o Village- Sorid Nagar, Ps - City Kotwali, Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.). 12. Duleshwar Sahu S/o Thakur Ram Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Piparchhedi (Wrongly Written In Annexure P/2), Ps- Arjuni, Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.).
Legal Reasoning
13. Neelmani Shrivas S/o Kamleshwar Shrivas Aged About 29 Years R/o Ekta Nagar, Ps- Kotwali, Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.). 14. Bhupendra Kumar Patel S/o Shri Gulal Ram Patel Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Siltara, Ps- Bhakhara, Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.). 15. Lekhraj Sahu S/o Khilawan Ram Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Borsi Dargahan, Ps- Kotwali, Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.). 16. Daulat Ram Sahu S/o Heera Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village- Nawagaon, Ps- Magarlod, Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.). 17. Bharat Lal Pal S/o Kumar Pal Aged About 31 Years R/o Sivanikala, Ps- Kurud, Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.). 18. Krishna Thakur S/o Ramnath Thakur Aged About 49 Years R/o Vanbagaud, Ps- Kerogaon, Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.). 19. Virendra Kumar Sahu S/o Bhau Ram Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Megha, Ps- Magarlod, Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.). 20. Bhanmati Sinha W/o Bhupesh Sinha Aged About 50 Years R/o Bortara, Ps- Gurur, Distt.- Balod (C.G.). 21. Dev Prakash Sahu S/o Dauwa Ram Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Paraswani, Ps- Magarlod, Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner For State : Mr. N. Naha Roya, Advocate. : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal 17 / 06 / 2025 Order on Board 3 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the prosecution arisen out of Special Criminal Case No.03/2022 pending before the Court of Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) for an offence registered at the Police Station:GRP Thana Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) under Sections 420, 409, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 3, 4 and 5 of Prize Chit Funds and Money Circulation Act, 1978 and Section 10 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005, to which effect an order-sheet dated 13.04.2022 has been recorded. 2. Facts of the present case are that on 04.06.2021, an FIR registered at the PS: GRP Raipur, Raipur (CG) aththe instance of a complaint lodged by respondent No. 2 herein alleging that the present petitioner had committed a fraud by not returning the amount having deposited from them in his bank account with the allurement of higher returns, which upon being duly enquired, it came out that the complainant along with his companions had deposited about 90,00,000/- Rs against the promise of giving higher returns in a span of sixty to one-twenty days by making investments in the company namely : “Ithe Plus Infor” run by the present petitioner. The complaint leading to the registration of the FIR contained the names of twenty six (26) persons claiming to be victims of conduct of the present petitioner. Thereafter, police subsequent to the registration of FIR conducted the investigation and filed the charge-sheet vide 4 order before the Court of Special Railway Magistrate, Distt. Raipur, from where the same was committed to the Court of Sessions Raipur (CG) vide order dated 08.04.2022, which was so registered as Special Criminal Case No. 03/2022 vide order dated 13.04.2022. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the course of trial, however, he could be able to make arrangements for the refund of the amounts invested by the complainant and all the victim persons enlisted in the complaint, which pacified the grievance of the complainant/victims and as such all of them executed affidavits clearly stating therein that they have received the invested amount through one Ahimal Yadav in the company run by the petitioner and as such were not interested to pursue the case anymore and were also willing to drop the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, therefore, in view of arising of such situation, it is prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and set-aside the order dated 13.04.2022 and quash the entire criminal proceedings arisen out of Case No. 03/2022 pending before the Court of Sessions, Raipur (CG). 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the criminal proceedings have been pending before the learned trial Court, therefore, at this stage, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 5 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition including the order sheet of the trial Court. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence and also considering the fact that the criminal proceeding is pending before the trial Court, therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the criminal proceedings. 7. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- Sourabh P. (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge