Piyusha Joshi D/o Mr. Devendra Joshi Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Rajendra Nagar v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Ministry of Home Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.08.25 17:54:42 +0530 2025:CGHC:42898-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2653 of 2025 Piyusha Joshi D/o Mr. Devendra Joshi Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Rajendra Nagar P.S. Rajendra Nagar Dist- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Ministry of Home Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur District- Raipur 2 - The Station House Officer Police Station Civil Lines District- Raipur C.G. 3 - Anjana Gahirwar D/o Late Rajnarayan Gahirwar Aged About 34 Years Resident - of M.G. Road Behind Gold Storage Patpariya Ambiokapur Dist- Surajpur C.G. (As Per Fir Address Correctly Mentioned) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ratan Pandey, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 and 2 : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Legal Reasoning
money in the account of the petitioner creates a prima facie link connecting her with the chain of circumstances of the offence. Whether the petitioner had knowledge or not is a matter of trial and cannot be decided at this stage under Section 528 BNSS. It is further submitted that once the investigation discloses material showing flow of the cheated amount into the petitioner’s account, the police has rightly arrayed her as an accused and the learned JMFC has correctly taken cognizance of the offences. The veracity of allegations and the defence of the petitioner can only be adjudicated during trial, not at the stage of quashing. Reliance is placed on the settled principle that the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C./582 BNSS is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. Where the allegations 7 in the FIR and charge-sheet disclose the commission of cognizable offences, the proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed. As such, the instant petition be dismissed being devoid of merit. 6. Having considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the FIR, charge-sheet and material collected during investigation, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. 7. It is settled law that while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS, the Court is not expected to meticulously evaluate the evidence or conduct a mini-trial. The jurisdiction is to be invoked sparingly, with circumspection, and only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide or malicious intent. 8. In the present case, the investigation has revealed that part of the cheated amount, i.e., Rs. 3,00,000/-, was deposited into the bank account of the petitioner. The said fact prima facie connects the petitioner with the alleged offence and raises triable issues which cannot be adjudicated at the stage of quashing. Whether the petitioner had knowledge of such transfer or whether she played any role in the alleged inducement are disputed questions of fact, which are required to be examined on the basis of evidence 8 during trial. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) carved out the illustrative categories under which criminal proceedings may be quashed. The present case, however, does not fall under any of the parameters laid down therein. On the contrary, the allegations in the FIR and the charge-sheet, if taken at their face value, do disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged. 10. The Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401 has reiterated that the power of quashing is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and where the allegations disclose cognizable offences, the Court should not interfere with the investigation or trial. 11. Similarly, in State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222, it has been held that the High Court should refrain from usurping the functions of the trial court and should not embark upon appreciation of evidence while considering a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS. 12. Further, in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre,(1988) 1 SCC 692, it has been observed that while quashing proceedings, the Court has to see whether continuation of the proceedings would be a sheer abuse of the process of law. In the present case, given that the money trail has been established in the petitioner’s account, it cannot be said that 9 continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. 13. In view of the aforesaid legal position, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the action of the investigating agency in arraying the petitioner as an accused, or in the order of cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate. 14. Accordingly, the instant petition filed under Section 528 BNSS stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Anu
Arguments
Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 25.08 .2025 1. Heard Mr. Ratan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents No.1 and 2. 2 2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS and in exercise thereof admit the petition, call for the records and after hearing the parties in the matter, quashing entire charge sheet including the FIR No.54/2025 filed before the JMFC, Raipur, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC and in consequences quash the order of taking cognizance dated 25.04.2025 and entire criminal case (i.e. Criminal case no. 14998/2025)to the extent of the petitioner, being abuse of process of court and abuse of process of law and also in violation of petitioner's fundamental rights and in peculiar factual matrix of case and in interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that the complainant/respondent No. 3 lodged a complaint before respondent No. 2–Police Station alleging that one Devendra Joshi induced her on the pretext of providing government employment, obtained money from her, but neither provided the job nor returned the amount. During investigation, it was found that accused Devendra Joshi and another co-accused Swapnil Dubey were primarily involved in collecting money from the complainant and other victims for the purpose of providing government jobs. 3 Most of the monetary transactions were carried out through the account of Swapnil Dubey. On conclusion of investigation, apart from the aforesaid accused persons, the police arrayed the present petitioner as an accused on the ground that a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-, alleged to have been taken by Devendra Joshi, was transferred into the account of the petitioner, who happens to be his daughter. The prosecution case against the petitioner is limited only to the fact that Rs. 3,00,000/- was deposited in her bank account. There are no allegations of inducement, fraud, or promise of providing employment attributed to the petitioner. Neither in the FIR, nor in the charge-sheet, nor in the statements of witnesses, has any allegation been made against her. The charge-sheet itself demonstrates that the said amount was transferred to the petitioner’s account without her knowledge and without any role or participation on her part. No material has been collected to show her complicity in the alleged offences. Despite absence of incriminating allegations, the police filed the charge- sheet, and the learned JMFC, Raipur took cognizance and registered Criminal Case No. 14998 by order dated 25.04.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present is a fit case where the entire investigation, filing of charge-sheet before the learned Court below, and the consequential order of cognizance dated 25.04.2025 are illegal, unwarranted and unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the FIR, charge-sheet, and order of cognizance are contrary to law and arbitrary, 4 inasmuch as there are no allegations against the petitioner of inducement or of making any promise to provide employment. The complainant and other victims have not even named the petitioner in connection with the alleged offences. The only circumstance projected against the petitioner is that a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- came to be deposited in her bank account on the instructions of her father–accused Devendra Joshi. The said amount was transferred without the petitioner’s knowledge, which fact is reflected even from the statement of the complainant and the victims. Hence, no offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has in various cases, while dealing with offences under Section 420 IPC relating to inducement for providing employment upon payment of money, held that such transactions being per se illegal, the investigating agency cannot be expected to waste its time in investigating such complaints. In such cases, continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of law. It is urged that the allegations in the FIR and charge-sheet, even if taken at their face value, do not constitute the ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 IPC. The petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the alleged conspiracy or inducement. It is further contended that the registration of FIR against the petitioner amounts to sheer abuse of process of law and court, inasmuch as the FIR and the supporting material do not disclose commission of any offence by 5 the petitioner. Even otherwise, the FIR is highly belated and suffers from unexplained delay. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon’ble Court to submit that registration of an FIR merely for the purpose of recovering earnest money is impermissible in law. The present FIR is manifestly tainted with malice in fact and malice in law, and has been instituted only with an intent to harass and humiliate the petitioner. The police authorities have also failed to adhere to the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court prior to registration of FIR, which renders the entire proceeding void ab initio. It is submitted that the present case squarely falls within the seven categories carved out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), more particularly under Parameter No. 7, where criminal proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. Therefore, the proceedings deserve to be quashed at the threshold itself. Learned counsel finally submits that initiation and continuance of the impugned criminal proceedings not only infringes the fundamental and constitutional rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, but also amounts to allowing the State instrumentalities to act as instruments of oppression rather than protectors of law. Such “matsya nyaya” (law of the fish) is wholly impermissible in a country governed by rule of law. As such, the instant petition be allowed and the Court may quash the FIR, 6 charge-sheet as well as the order of cognizance, thereby securing the ends of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the investigation was conducted strictly in accordance with law and after due collection of material evidence. It is submitted that the allegation in the complaint is that Devendra Joshi and co- accused Swapnil Dubey induced the complainant and others on the pretext of providing government jobs and received huge amounts of money. During investigation, it was revealed that part of the cheated amount, i.e., Rs. 3,00,000/-, was transferred into the bank account of the present petitioner. The receipt of tainted