44502-DB NAFR 1 - Deepak Claudius S/o Late C.S. Claudius, aged about 64 years v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through The SHO, Police Station Bhilai Nagar, Durg Chhattisg
Case Details
1 ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2729 of 2025 2025:CGHC:44502-DB NAFR 1 - Deepak Claudius S/o Late C.S. Claudius, aged about 64 years R/o Sector 09, Quarter No.04/B, Police Station Bhilai Nagar Bhilai District- Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - Pratibha Chhaya Claudius W/o Deepak Claudius, aged about 64 years R/o Sector 09, Road Number 29, Quarter No.04/B, Police Station Bhilai Nagar, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through The SHO, Police Station Bhilai Nagar, Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - Vivek Tiwari S/o Late Shesh Narayan Tiwari, aged about 57 years R/o 07/A/43, Sector 07, Bhilai Tehsil and District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Bhagwati Tiwari W/o Late Shesh Narayan Tiwari, aged about 79 years R/o- 7/A/43 Sector-07, Bhilai, Tehsil and District- Durg, Chhattisgarh (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) --- Respondents For Petitioner : For Respondent No.1/State : For Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Samdarsh Nirankari, Advocate Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Chief Justice , Judge
Decision
Order on Board 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 0 2 .0 9 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Samdarsh Nirankari, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. Vipin Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 2 & 3. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer : “i. That, the entire records pertaining to the present case may kindly be called for the perusal of this Hon'ble Court ii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order, dated 02.03.2024, upon the application under 156(3) of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent nos. 2 & 3, directing the respondent no. 1 to register F.I.R. against the present petitioners, passed in MJC Cri./3616/2024 (Filing No.). iii. That, this Hon'ble Court may be kindly pleased to quash the F.I.R. bearing crime no. 134/2024, registered at Police Station Bhilai Nagar, District Durg, on 08.03.2024, u/s 420 & 34 of the I.P.C. iv. That, this Hon'ble Court may be kindly pleased to quash the chargesheet no. 116/24, submitted on 19.06.2024, by the Bhilai Nagar Police, in relation to crime no. 134/2024. v. That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the order taking cognizance passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Durg, Chhattisgarh, dated 14.08.2024, in relation with crime no. 134/2024, and also the subsequent entire criminal proceedings pending before him in R.C.C./14014/2024. vi. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interests of Justice, may be awarded.” 3. Factual matrix of the case is that the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have 3 filed a compliant under Section 156(3) of CrPC dated 19.03.2023 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, alleging that respondent No. 3, Bhagwati Tiwari, had lent Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Only) to the petitioners on 04.04.2014 and the respondent No.2, Vivek Tiwari, had lent Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Only) to the petitioners on 15.10.2015. This money was taken as a loan by the petitioners to facilitate medical education of their daughter Ananya Claudius, abroad, and was promised that the money will be returned within one year. It was alleged that after asking for their money back after a period of one year, the petitioners gave them three cheques, the first one numbered 074653, dated 02.03.2020, for Rupees Three Lakh only, in favour of Vivek Tiwari, the second one numbered 023242, dated 02.03.2020, for Rupees Nine Lakh Ninety Five Thousand only, in favour of Vivek tiwari, and the third one numbered 023296, dated 02.03.2020, for Rupees Nine Lakh Ninety Five Thousand only, in favour of Bhagwati Tiwari and upon the said cheques being presented before the bank on 02.03.2020, they were dishonoured for having insufficient funds. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg had ordered the respondent No.1 to register an FIR in the matter vide order dated 02.03.2024, in MJC Cri./ 3616/2024 (Filing No.). Thereafter, an F.I.R. under Sections 420 and 34 of I.P.C. was registered on 08.03.2024, in Crime No. 134/2024, at the Bhilai Nagar Police Station, and later a charge sheet No. 116/24 was filed on 19.06.2024, upon which 4 cognizance was taken by the learned J.M.F.C., Durg, vide order dated 14.08.2024, and the proceedings initiated in RCC/14014/2024. Being aggrieved by the same, instant petition has been filed by the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the complaint under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the respondent Nos.2 & 3/complainants on 29.03.2023, which is after three years of filing of complaint case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, read with section 420 of the I.P.C., on 26.06.2020, on the same set of facts, and the matter is already sub-judice before the learned J.M.F.C., Durg, which constitutes an abuse of process of the Court. He further argued that the respondent Nos. 2 & 3/complainants have concealed the fact that a case is already being sub-judice and pending on the same set of facts in their compliant under section 156(3), and trying to mislead and manipulate the learned Court. He also submitted that instead of filing a money recovery suit, or a suit for specific performance of contract, or for damages, before the competent Civil Court, the respondent complainants are trying to indulge in high handed tactics to use the criminal process as a weapon of harassment because no facts have been alleged which would show that there was any intention to deceive from the start, or at the time of making promise. He contended that a civil dispute which ought to have been resolved through the forum of Civil Court has been given criminal colour by lifting from the 5 penal code certain words or phrases and implanting them in the criminal complaint, and that the learned J.M.F.C., Durg, has failed to apply his mind in ordering registration of F.I.R., which has led to abuse of process of the criminal court, hence, the impugned criminal proceedings be quashed. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment passed Honble Supreme Court in the matter of G. Sagar Suri and Another Vs. State of UP and Others, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 636 and Kolla Veera Raghav Rao Vs. Gorantala Venkateswara Rao and Another, reported in (2011) 2 SCC 703. He further placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Vishal Malhotra & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (CRMP No. 340 of 2023 decided on 2023). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that respondent No.3, Bhagwati Tiwari, had lent Rs. 8,00,000/- to the petitioners on 04.04.2014 and the respondent No.2, Vivek Tiwari, had lent Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioners on 15.10.2015, the said money was taken as a loan by the petitioners to facilitate medical education of their daughter Ananya Claudius, abroad, and was promised that the money will be returned within one year and on asking for their money back after a period of one year, the petitioners gave them three cheques, which were dishonoured for having insufficient funds and thereafter, two separate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 6 have been initiated against the petitioners and during pendency of the said proceedings, the petitioners have entered into a compromise with the respondents and given them power of attorney for two lands and stated that they can sell the said lands and recover their money, but, later on it came to the knowledge of the private respondents that the said lands were not belonging to the petitioners and cheated them by making false and fabricated documents in relation to the said lands. He further submitted that later on the petitioners have also taken the pass-book of the respondents and by suppressing the names of respondents in the said pass-book got the entry made in the same and shown that the alleged money has been came back to their account. He also submitted that the petitioners are the habitual offenders, they have also taken money from six other persons to facilitate medical education of their daughter Ananya Claudius, abroad and the said fact has also been mentioned in the application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. He contended that when the entire allegation as alleged in the application under Section 156(3) as well as in the FIR is accepted on its face value, the offence of cheating is clearly made out, hence, prays for dismissal of the instant petition. He further contended that the allegations clearly disclose dishonest inducement and deception, not merely a breach of contract. It was submitted that the petitioners not only failed to honour their commitment, but also executed fabricated documents of non-existent property and misrepresented bank entries, thereby cheating the respondents. 7 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned charge sheet. 7. On a pointed query being made from learned counsel for the petitioners that whether the petitioners have taken the alleged money from the private respondents, he admitted that they have taken the said money. 8. The scope of interference under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) is well settled. The High Court, while exercising inherent jurisdiction, is not expected to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence. Interference is warranted only when the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any offence, or where the proceedings manifestly amount to abuse of the process of law. 9. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra [(2021) 6 SCC 116], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphatically held that FIRs should not ordinarily be quashed at the threshold, and that investigation ought not to be stifled except in the rarest of rare cases where the allegations, on the face of the complaint, do not disclose any cognizable offence. 10. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioners are not confined merely to dishonour of cheques, but it was also alleged that they have entered into a compromise with the respondents and given them power of attorney for two lands and stated that 8 they can sell the said lands and recover their money, but, the said lands were not belonging to the petitioners, and as such, they had cheated the private respondents by making false and fabricated documents in relation to the said lands. It is further alleged that the petitioners have also taken the pass-book of the respondents and by suppressing the names of respondents in the said pass-book got the entry made in the same and shown that the alleged money has been came back to their bank account. It is also alleged that the petitioners are the habitual offenders, as they have also taken money from six other persons to facilitate medical education of their daughter Ananya Claudius, abroad and the said fact has also been mentioned in the application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC as well as in the FIR. These allegations, taken as a whole, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offence. 11. The judgments relied upon by the petitioners are distinguishable. In G. Sagar Suri (supra), the dispute was purely of a civil nature without allegations of deception or fabrication. In the present case, additional facts relating to creation of false property documents and misrepresentation of repayment clearly elevate the case beyond a simple loan transaction. Similarly, Kolla Veera Raghav Rao (supra) pertained to double jeopardy, which is not applicable in the facts at hand. 12. The contention that pendency of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act bars initiation of proceedings 9 under Section 420 IPC is also untenable. The two provisions operate in distinct spheres and prosecution under both is permissible if the factual foundation so warrants. 13. At this stage, this Court is not to examine the truthfulness of the allegations or the sufficiency of evidence. It is sufficient that the FIR and charge sheet disclose the commission of cognizable offence. Once such disclosure is made, the continuation of proceedings cannot be termed as abuse of process. 14. In view of the above discussion and in light of the principle laid down in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out for exercise of inherent powers to quash the FIR, charge sheet or cognizance order. The petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 15. It is made clear that any observation made herein is only for the purpose of deciding this petition and shall not prejudice the trial Court in considering the evidence on its own merits. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra