1 - Rajesh Sharma S/o Shri Suresh Sharma, Aged About 47 Years R/o B-3 v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Home Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:41387-DB NAFR AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.08.19 10:37:21 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2705 of 2024 1 - Rajesh Sharma S/o Shri Suresh Sharma, Aged About 47 Years R/o B-3, Walfort City, Ring Road No.1, Near Bhatagaon, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001. 2 - Anju Sharma W/o Shri Rajesh Sharma, Aged About 44 Years R/o B- 3, Walfort City, Ring Road No.1, Near Bhata Gaon, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 492001. --- Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Home Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Station House Officer, Telibandha, District- Raipur (C.G.)
Legal Reasoning
3 - Anup Agrawal S/o Shri Shivshankar Agrawal, Aged About 42 Years With Office Address Sarvamangala Infrabuild Private Limited, Moulshree Vihar, 31, Vip Road, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents CRMP No. 2723 of 2024 Prince Sharma S/o Shri Rajesh Sharma Aged About 22 Years Permanent Address B-3, Walfort City, Ring Road No. 1, Near Bhata Gaon, Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001 ---Petitioner Versus 2 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Station House Officer Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Anup Agrawal S/o Shivshankar Agrawal Aged About 42 Years Office Address Sarvamangla Infrabuild Private Limited, Moulshree Vihar, 31, Vip Road Telibandha Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondents CRMP No. 2708 of 2024 Rakesh Sharma S/o Shri Suresh Sharma, Aged About 43 Years With Permanent Address At 1652, Sector 13, Hisar Haryana. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Station House Officer, Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Anup Agrawal S/o Shri Shrivshankar Agrawal, Aged About 42 Years With Office Address Sarvamangla Infrabuild Private Limited, Moulshree Vihar, 31, Vip Road Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Cause title taken from CIS) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Shri Aman Saxena, Advocate appeared For Respondents/State : Shri Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. : None, despite service of notice. For Respondent No.3 through video conferencing. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18.08.2025 1. Since all the petitions arising out of same crime number, they are being considered and decided by this common order. 2. The present Cr.M.Ps have been filed with the following prayer:- 3 “1. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned First Information Report (F.I.R) No 0447/2024 dated 17.06.2024 (Annexure-P/1) filed by the Respondent at Police Station Telibandha, Dist. Raipur (C.G) whereby the Petitioners have been accused of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 409, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, as per FIR, in the interest of justice. 2. That the entire record of the aforementioned case be called for just decision in the case. 3. This Hon'ble court may pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.” 3. (A) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are Directors at Satya Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. and the complainant/respondent No.3, namely, Anup Agrawal, Director of Sarvmangla Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. He further argued that the petitioners Company and complainant Company regularly sell and purchase steel goods (Mild Steel Blade) to produce finished goods (Mild Steel Pipes). The petitioners Company till date has paid upwards Rs. 18 crores towards the dues to the complainant Company and directly to other vendors as directed by the complainant Company. The petitioners Company has also supplied finished goods to the complainant Company. 4 (B) Learned counsel submits that the complainant on 17.06.2024 has lodged the FIR under Section 409, 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) with an averment that the present petitioners along with other co-accused, Rakesh Sharma (brother of petitioner No. 1), Prince Sharma (son of petitioners) and Kushal Dudeja (broker), with an intention to cheat the complainant, purchased steel goods (Mild Steel Blade) to produce finished goods (Mild Steel Pipes). The complainant in the FIR further alleged that the Company of the present petitioners along with other co-accused have not made the payment to the tune of Rs. 10,17,00,797. Therefore, by non-payment of the balance amount, the Company has caused a loss of Rs. 10,17,00,797/- to the Company of the complainant, and therefore, the petitioners have committed cheating and criminal breach of trust on account of their failure to make payment for the aforesaid balance amount. (C) Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioner, namely, Rakesh Sharma in CRMP No. 2708 of 2024 is the brother of co-accused Rajesh Sharma. The petitioner/Rakesh Sharma is not a Director or an employee at accused Company, he has already partitioned way back on 15.06.2009 and has been living separately from the rest of the family and is not involved in business with any other family members. Similarly, the petitioner, namely, Prince Sharma in CRMP No. 2723 of 2024 is son of co-accused, namely, Rajesh Sharma and Anju Sharma, who are Director at Satya Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner/Prince Sharma is merely a student who was studying at Mumbai in Mithibai College of Arts, Chauhan 5 Institute of Science and Amrutbhen Jivanlal College of Commerce and Economics. He also submits that when the present transaction was ongoing, the petitioner/Prince Sharma is not a Director or an employee at their parents Company. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute between the petitioners and the complainant is purely commercial transaction of civil in nature and no criminal offence is made out aInstitute of Science and Amrutbhen Jivanlal College of Commerce and Economics. He also submits that when the present transaction was ongoing, the petitioner/Prince Sharma is not a Director or an employee at their parents Company. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute between the petitioners and the complainant is purely commercial transaction of civil in nature and no criminal offence is made out against the petitioners. The petitioners have not committed any fraud or cheating with the complainant. He also contended that the petitioners in CRMP No. 2705 of 2024 have already been granted anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. This Court issued notice to the respondent No.3, thereafter, the same has been issued and despite service of notice, the respondent No.3 has chosen not to appear before this Court. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State, perused the pleadings and documents. 7. Bare perusal of the pleadings it is manifest that the dispute between 6 the petitioners and the complainant is purely commercial transaction of civil in nature and no criminal offence is made out against the petitioners. It is also manifest that the petitioners’ Company and complainant Company regularly involved in business transaction of sell and purchase steel goods (Mild Steel Blade) and finished goods (Mild Steel Pipes). It is also apparent that the petitioners’ Company till date has paid upwards Rs. 18 crores towards the dues to the complainant Company and directly to other vendors as instructed by the complainant Company. The petitioners Company has also supplied finished goods to the complainant Company. Thus, in the opinion of this Court owing to some dispute in respect of the business transaction occurred and for which the impugned FIR has been lodged by giving the criminal nature to a dispute, which is purely civil in nature. 8. Recently, the Apex Court, in Shailesh Kumar Singh Alias Shailesh R. Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. {Cr.A. No. 2963/2025 : 2025 INSC 869}, observed as under: “10. How many times the High Courts are to be reminded that to constitute an offence of cheating, there has to be something more than prima facie on record to indicate that the intention of the accused was to cheat the complainant right from the inception. The plain reading of the FIR does not disclose any element of criminality. 11. The entire case is squarely covered by a recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of “Delhi Race Club 7 (1940) Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh” reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690. In the said decision, the entire law as to what constitutes cheating and criminal breach of trust respectively has been exhaustively explained. It appears that this very decision was relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the High Court. However, instead of looking into the matter on its own merits, the High Court thought fit to direct the petitioner to go for mediation and that too by making payment of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the 4th respondent as a condition precedent. We fail to understand, why the High Court should undertake such exercise. The High Court may either allow the petition saying that no offence is disclosed or may reject the petition saying that no case for quashing is made out. Why should the High Court make an attempt to help the complainant to recover the amount due and payable by the accused. It is for the Civil Court or Commercial Court as the case may be to look into in a suit that may be filed for recovery of money or in any other proceedings, be it under the Arbitration Act, 1996 or under the provisions of the IB Code, 2016. xxx xxx xxx 13. We also enquired with the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4 whether his client has filed any civil suit or has initiated any other proceedings for recovery of the money. It appears that no civil suit has been filed for recovery of money till this date. Money cannot be recovered, 8 more particularly, in a civil dispute between the parties by filing a First Information Report and seeking the help of the Police. This amounts to abuse of process of law. 9. From the materials available on record, we are of the view that this is a fit case where this Court should exercise its powers under Section 528 of the BNSS and quash the FIR dated 17.06.2024 bearing Crime No. 0447/2024 filed by the respondent No.3 at Police Station City Telibandha, District-Raipur, for the offences under Sections 420, 409, 120-B of IPC. 10. Resultantly, all the petition stand allowed. However, the respondent No.3 may take recourse to civil proceedings for redressal of the grievances, if so advised. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/ Amardeep