Dr. Rupesh Khande S/o Anand Kumar Khande Aged About 43 Years Now 50 Years v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho, P.S. City Kotwali, Mungeli Distt.- Mungeli
Case Details
1 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.06.25 10:48:10 +0530 2025:CGHC:27136-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1930 of 2025 Dr. Rupesh Khande S/o Anand Kumar Khande Aged About 43 Years Now 50 Years, R/o Tilak Para Ward No. - 09, Nawagarh, P.S.- Jila - Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho, P.S. City Kotwali, Mungeli Distt.- Mungeli, (C.G.) 2 - Kheer Prasad Chandra S/o Setram Chandra Aged About 45 Years (Informant/witness), Shikshak, R/o Madanpur Post Fasterpur Ps Fasterpur, Distt.- Mungeli, (C.G.) 3 - Rajesh Kumar Diwakar S/o Gokul Prasad Aged About 41 Years R/o Hariyarpur, Ps Fasterpur Distt.- Mungeli, (C.G.) 4 - Shyamji Kurre S/o Chaitram Kurre Aged About 63 Years R/o Khurighat Ps City Kotwali Mungeli, Distt.- Mungeli, (C.G.) 5 - Hoshlal Ratre S/o Ramlal Ratre Aged About 55 Years R/o Nawagaon (Ghutera) Ps Mungeli Distt.- Mungeli (C.G.) 6 - Johandas Miri S/o Agardas Miri Aged About 42 Years R/o Tilaibhath Ps Bodalajila Kabirdham, C.G. 7 - Vinod Soni S/o Gopal Prasad Soni Aged About 50 Years R/o Sonarpara Mungeli Ps, Jila Mungeli, (C.G.) 8 - Amit Singh Chauhan S/o Arun Singh Chauhan Aged About 35 Years R/o Kunda Ps Kunda Jila Kabirdham, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
proceedings has been succinctly summarized by this Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited and Others after considering the earlier precedents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the case of A.M. Mohan V/s State by SHO (2023 SCC Onlines 946), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- "13. It could thus be seen that for attracting the provision of Section 420 of IPC, the FIR/complaint must show that the ingredients of Section 415 of IPC are made out and the person cheated must have been dishonestly induced to deliver the property to any person; or to make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. In other words, for attracting the provisions of Section 420 of IPC, it must be shown that the FIR/complaint discloses: 6 (I) the deception of any person; (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person; and (iii)dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sharad Kumar Sanghi v. Sangeeta Rane (2015) 12 SCC 781 and case of S.C.GARG V. State of U.P & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 438/2018 dated 16 April 2025), held that it is clear that once a transaction is made with the company, the company being a legal entity, unless and until the company is made as co-accused, the complaint is not maintainable. 8. Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet and submits that in the present matter, along with charge-sheet, cognizance has also been taken against the petitioner and the same has not been challenged in the present petition, as such, this petition is a defective one and the same may be dismissed. 9. Learned State Counsel further argued that a bare perusal of charge-sheet goes to show that the petitioner has facilitated in the commission of the crime and has an active role to play in the crime, as the petitioner initially on 12/04/2018, the petitioner called the complainant and informed him about the meeting to be held in Singh International Hotel after which, the complainant along with his friends Shyamji Kurre, Hoshlal Ratre, Rajesh Kumar Diwakar, 7 Johan Prasad Mere, Vinod Kumar Soni, went there. There, they were told about Hum Tum India Company. In that meeting, Dr. Baljeet Singh along with Dr. Rupesh Khande (petitioner herein) told the plan of his company Hum Tum India and said that one has to become a member of our company by depositing Rs. 7,550/- and after getting membership, whatever investment you make in the company, 10% of it will be given every month for 24 months and if someone deposits Rs. 1,95,000/- in one go, he will keep getting 2.5% lifetime pension in addition to 10%. The petitioner along with other co-accused lured the complainant along with others to invest their money in the company fraudulently. Hence this petition is liable to be dismissed and trial is needed to be concluded and taken to its logical end. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 11. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed and cognizance has already been taken against the petitioner, as such, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the present matter as the FIR as well as the impugned charge-sheet, discloses the fact that the petitioner facilitated in the commission of the crime and has an active role to play in the crime in question as initially, he himself called the complainant and invited him to Singh International Hotel, wherein he along with other co- 8 accused, lured the complainant and other persons to invest money in Hum Tum India Company hence, it is obligatory that the trial be brought to a logical end. 12. 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/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet
Arguments
: Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 24.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.1 / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and Quash the FIR Dated 13/06/2020 and Charge Sheet (CS) Dated 17/03/2022 registered as Special Case No.01/2023 in the Court of SJ/Special Judge CG Protection of investor Act 2005 (wrongly mention 2025) Mungeli District Mungeli CG. in the interest of justice.” 3. Prosecution story in a nutshell is that the informant Kheer Prasad Chandra, on behalf of himself and 7 other people, submitted a written complaint about this incident at the Mungeli police station, that a meeting was organized by Dr. Baljeet Singh of "Humtum India Company", headquartered in Ludhiana, in the Singh International Hotel in Mungeli, in which the responsibility for public attendance was entrusted to Dr. Rupesh Khande. On 12/04/2018, 3 on receiving a call from Dr. Rupesh Khande, informant went to Singh International Hotel in Mungeli with his friends Shyamji Kurre, Hoshlal Ratre, Rajesh Kumar Diwakar, Johan Prasad Mere, Vinod Kumar Soni, where many people were present. There they were told about Hum Tum India Company. He liked the plan of the company told by those people. In that meeting, Dr. Baljeet Singh along with Dr. Rupesh Khande told the plan of his company Hum Tum India and said that one has to become a member of our company by depositing Rs. 7,550/- and after getting membership, whatever investment you make in the company, 10% of it will be given every month for 24 months and if someone deposits Rs. 1,95,000/- in one go, he will keep getting 2.5% lifetime pension in addition to 10%. Then the informant was impressed by the plan told by Dr. Rupesh Khande and Dr. Baljeet Singh and paid Rs. 22,500 for three IDs to take membership because he was told that without ID, the money will not be deposited in the company's account. The informant myself invested Rs. 11,97,000/- in which Rs. 5,80,000 in cash was given to Dr. Rupesh Khande and Rs. 6,17,000/- was deposited in the account of Dr. Baljeet Singh, SBI No. 20079493959. 4. In the month of June 2018 and July 2018, Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- were shown in informant’s ID which did not come in his bank account. Despite that, he kept depositing money till the month of October but he did not receive any money from the company. Then he realized that he has been cheated by Dr. 4 Rupesh and Dr. Baljeet. So, registered a case of fraud. On the above written complaint, the City Kotwali Police Station, Mungeli registered the First Information offence under section 420,34 IPC and section 3,4,5 of Inam Chit Fund Dhan Parichalan Pabandi Adhiniyam, 1978, started investigation on Crime No. 335/2020. Statement of kheer prasad chandra, vinod soni, johandas miri, amit singh chauhan, rajesh kumar diwakar, hoshlal ratre shyamji kurre under section 161 of criminal procedure code was recorded and as documentary evidence, hum tum india company's axis bank account no. 917020051857823 statement and kheer prasad chandra sbi account no. 10950670015 statement, shyamji kurre, shiv kumar meere's receipt deposited in baljeet singh's account number 7864002100000260, rajesh kumar diwakar's bi acc no. 30562341460 and icici bank account number statement of 328001500837 was seized and final report dated 17/03/2022 number 145/2022 was presented under section 420, 34 ipc and section 3,4,5 of Inam Chit Fund Dhan Parichalan Pabandi Adhiniyam 1978. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the averments made in the FIR are taken at their face value, no case is made out for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC against the applicant/petitioner. A reading of the charge-sheet would reveal that none of the ingredients to attract the provision of section 420 of IPC could be found therein. For attracting the offence of 'cheating' as defined under Section 415 of IPC and 5 punishable under Section 420 of IPC, it is necessary that the FIR should make out a case of "intentional inducement", "dishonesty" or "fraudulence". It is submitted that for the offence of 'cheating', there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should also have dishonestly induced the person deceived to deliver any property to a person. It is submitted that neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet contain a whisper with respect to any inducement, fraud or dishonesty qua the petitioner. The law with regard to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash complaints and criminal