Chandra High Court
Case Details
1 ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2361 of 2025 2025:CGHC:37127-DB NAFR Vijay Singh Meena S/o Ramesh Chandra Meena, aged about 24 years R/o Near Bangali Hotel, Heerapur, Police Station Kabir Nagar, Raipur District Raipur C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police Station Vidhansabha, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Atul Kumar Agrawal S/o Bajrang Lal Agrawal, aged about 32 years R/o House No. A -32, Capital City Phase -I Saddu, Police Station - Vidhansabha, Raipur District Raipur C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Maya Chaturvijani, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 30.07.2025 1. Heard Ms. Maya Chaturvijani, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik 2 Suraksha Sanhita (for short, ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the petitioner seeking following prayer :- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the criminal case cognizance order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 13289/2025, along with Charge Sheet No. 80/2025 and Crime No. 49/2025 registered at Police Station - Vidhansabha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) against the applicant, in the interest of justice.” 3. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Atul Kumar Agrawal lodged written complaint at Police Station Vidhansabha, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) stating inter-alia that he has completed his graduation and he operates Shri Ganesh Transport located in Punjab Oil Mill Gali, Bhaisthan, Raipur. On 02.03.2024, while he was in his office, he became friends with a person named Anjali Bansal through social media platforms Telegram and WhatsApp. Her mobile numbers are 8721986469 and 8651701389. She introduced the complainant to a share trading website - www.regc.cc - and asked him to register and invest money. For the registration, she took his Aadhaar card and PAN card and created a login ID: [email protected]. Under her instructions, the complainant made investments into the trading portal by depositing amounts into various bank accounts between 3 07.03.2024 (13:28 hrs) and 22.04.2024 (15:30 hrs). The total amount deposited was Rs.19,02,500/-. Out of this, only Rs.69,720/- was returned to his account. The remaining amount of Rs. 18,32,780/- has not been returned till that date. These transactions were done under the pretext of share trading and the complainant was defrauded online by Anjali Bansal and several other account holders. He waited for him money to be returned, but as no refund has been made till that date. Based on the complaint, Crime No. 49/2025 under Sections 420 and 34 Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Vidhansabha, District Raipur on 20.01.2025 and investigation was initiated. 4. During the course of investigation, it was found that the incident occurred between 07.03.2024 and 22.04.2024, during which a total of Rs. 18,32,780/- was fraudulently extracted from the complainant. Information was obtained about the bank account holders, their registered mobile numbers, KYC, and other relevant details, which were found to be operated by the accused persons. The accused were summoned and questioned about the accounts and transactions. Some other buyers, facilitators, and account holders are still absconding and are yet to be arrested. Statements of witnesses are also pending. Previously, the accused were issued a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’). On being summoned again, a notice under Section 94 BNSS was served to produce documents related to the firm/accounts and 4 registered mobile numbers. However, no documents were submitted by the accused, hence, a charge sheet No. 80/2025 dated 19.03.2025 was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur against the accused Suryakant Manjhiwar, Vijay Singh Meena, Satyam Sewani, Indra Kumar Sahu and Abhay Advani. 5. On 20.03.2025, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of Indian Penal Code and registered Criminal Case No. 13289/2025 against the present petitioner and other co-accused persons. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated, he is innocent, he has not committed any offence as he was not named in the FIR. She further argued that during the course of investigation, police found that the incident occurred between 07.03.2024 and 22.04.2024 and the allegation against the present petitioner is that some cheated amount was deposited into petitioner’s bank account No. 72910100022386, whereas the petitioner's bank account No. 72910100022386 was got opened on 27.06.2024 in Bank of Baroda, Branch Tatiband, Raipur which is evident from bank statement. It has been submitted that from perusal of the petitioner’s bank statement, it is crystal clear that the present petitioner is not involved in the crime in question. He has falsely been implicated by the police. The prosecution has failed to 5 establish any direct nexus or involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. The complaint does not attribute any specific role to the petitioner in the alleged fraudulent transactions and the charge sheet lacks credible evidence to connect the petitioner to the crime. The mere fact that an account allegedly linked to the petitioner was mentioned does not suffice to establish criminal liability under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been further submitted that the investigation conducted by the police was incomplete and perfunctory. The prosecution has relied on vague and unsubstantiated allegations without corroborating evidence, such as call records, electronic evidence or witness statements, directly implicating the applicant. The failure to produce such evidence renders the charge sheet defective and unsustainable. The petitioner was not provided a fair opportunity to present his defense during the investigation. The notices issued under Section 35(3) and Section 94 of the BNSS were vague and did not specify the documents or detail, it is, therefore, prayed that to quash the criminal case cognizance order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 13289/2025, along with Charge Sheet No. 80/2025 and Crime No. 49/2025 registered at Police Station - Vidhansabha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) against the applicant, in the interest of justice. 7. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent opposes this petition and submits that it is a 6 case of online fraud and since the charge-sheet has already been submitted against the petitioner, and the perusal of the materials on record discloses commission of cognizable offence, no interference is warranted at this stage. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court 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. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex 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., 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. 10. It has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, that the proceedings relating to cognizable ofences cannot be interfered except on certain grounds enumerated by the Apex Court in the said judgment. It is evident that, none of the grounds mentioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment 7 are attracted in the present case. In State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani & others reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of cognizable ofence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR. Also what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence. 11. From perusal of the contents of the FIR as well as in the charge- sheet, it transpires that it is a case of online fraud and during the course of investigation, information was obtained about the bank account holders, their registered mobile numbers, KYC, and other relevant details, which were found to be operated by the accused persons. The accused were summoned and questioned about the accounts and transactions. Some other buyers, facilitators, and account holders are still absconding and are yet to be arrested. Statements of witnesses are also pending. Previously, the accused were issued a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS. On being summoned again, a notice under Section 94 BNSS was served to produce documents related to the firm/accounts and registered mobile numbers, however, no documents were submitted by the accused, hence, the charge-sheet was submitted and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur has taken cognizance against the petitioner along with other co- accused persons as such, this Court cannot come to a conclusion 8 that prima facie, no case is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner will have every opportunity before the learned Trial Court to rebut the allegations levelled against him. This Court cannot examine or appreciate the evidences that may be led before the learned Trial Court and stalling the trial would be wholly unjustiied. Further, in light of what has been said by the Supreme Court in Bhajanlal (supra) and Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra), there appears to be no good ground for quashing of the charge- sheet. 12. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra