1 - Rajesh Gupta @ Champu S/o Brijmohan Gupta Aged About 54 Years R/o v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Station House OfÏ
Case Details
1 SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.09.18 17:49:30 +0530 2025:CGHC:47680-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2918 of 2025 1 - Rajesh Gupta @ Champu S/o Brijmohan Gupta Aged About 54 Years R/o Near Ganj Mandi, Basantpur, P.S. Basantpur, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 2 - Ghanshyam Ramnath Vishwakarma S/o Shri Ramnath Vishwakarma Aged About 39 Years R/o Nandai Road, Ward No. 41, Basantpur, P.S. Basantpur, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
2 - Smt. Nalini Meshram W/o Shri Santosh Meshram Aged About 54 Years R/o Ward No. 03, Kedarbadi, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Cause title taken from CIS) ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s) : Shri Vinod Kumar Tekam, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.09.2025 1. The present Cr.M.P. has been filed with the following prayer:- 1. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023 filed by the petitioners, in the interest of justice. 2. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR bearing No. 364/2024 registered on dated 17.08.2024 at police station Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh filed under section 420, 34 of I.P.C. as well as further entire criminal proceeding of Crime No. 364/2024 against the petitioners, in the interest of justice. 3. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly grant any other reliefs in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 2. Facts of the case are that the complainant, Smt. Nalini Meshram, lodged a report at Police Station Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon, alleging that the present petitioners, being 3 politically influential persons, approached her with the assurance that they could secure a political party ticket for the Dongargarh Constituency in the 2023 Vidhan Sabha elections on account of their good relations at the central level. It is alleged that the petitioners demanded a sum of ₹2 crores for the said purpose, and on their assurance, the complainant paid an amount of ₹30 lakhs to them on different dates at the Circuit House, Rajnandgaon, whereafter she was cheated. On the basis of this report, FIR No. 364/2024 dated 17.08.2024 was registered against the applicants for offences under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are reputed persons holding political and social positions, and on account of political rivalry, repeated false complaints have been made against them. It is pointed out that earlier complaints lodged by the complainant at Police Station Dongargarh and at Mahila Thana Rajnandgaon were duly enquired into and dropped, and the present FIR is the third successive attempt to harass the petitioners. It is urged that the allegations are false and fabricated, as the petitioners have not committed any fraud or cheating and have not 4 received any amount as alleged. The FIR suffers from unexplained and inordinate delay, as the alleged incident is said to have occurred in July 2023 whereas the FIR was lodged in August 2024. It is further submitted that the investigation was not properly conducted before or after registration of the FIR, and despite lapse of more than a year, no charge sheet has been filed, which is contrary to law. Learned counsel emphasizes that even this Court, while considering their bail applications, has found no prima facie material against the petitioners and granted them bail by orders dated 05.09.2024 and 12.11.2024. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioners, being innocent, have been falsely implicated merely on suspicion without any cogent material, and the FIR deserves to be quashed. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the FIR clearly discloses offences under Sections 420 and 34 IPC, Hence, the petition is without merit and liable to be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition. 5 6. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the FIR lodged against them. Upon a specific query made to counsel for the parties, it has been stated that the investigation is still pending. 7. The jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR, or charge-sheet is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly. Courts ordinarily do not interfere with investigations of cognizable offences. FIRs may be quashed only where allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence. In State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 605, the Apex Court held that quashing is permissible in rare cases, such as where allegations are frivolous, inherently improbable, or mala fide. Similarly, in Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill, reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259, and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd., reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, it was held that a prima facie case prevents quashing, though patently absurd allegations may be quashed. Further, in Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Court emphasized that Courts cannot probe the 6 reliability of allegations at the threshold. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 540, it was reiterated that probabilities of the prosecution case or mala fide intent cannot be assessed at the quashing stage. 8. Applying the above principles, the contentions raised by the petitioner’s counsel cannot be examined at this stage. Adjudication of factual disputes, evaluation of evidence, or assessment of credibility does not fall within the jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. On the material on record, it cannot be concluded that the criminal proceedings are manifestly mala fide or instituted with an ulterior motive to harass the accused. FIRs or criminal proceedings can be quashed only in accordance with the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above decisions. 9. It is a settled position of law that once an FIR discloses cognizable offences, investigation has to proceed and this Court would not ordinarily exercise its inherent powers to stifle such investigation at the threshold. In view of the above discussion and also considering that the allegations contained in the FIR that the petitioners have cheated the complainant 7 and obtained Rs. 30 lakhs from her with an assurance that they will secure a ticket of particular political party for the Dongargarh Constituency in the Vidhan Sabha Election as against the demand of Rs. 2 crore, this Court is of the considered view that it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is disclosed. In such circumstances, no ground for quashing the FIR is made out the present petition is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib