Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:49127-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3005 of 2025 SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.09.26 10:41:00 +0530 1 - Navnit Kumar Pandey S/o Kameshwar Pandey Aged About 52 Years R/o- Shivam Garden, Phase- 1, Flat No. 02, Kilburn Colony, P.S.- Doranda (Ranchi), District- Ranchi, Jharkhand, Originally R/o Village Gogdha, P.S. And Tehsil, District Palamu, Jharkhand 2 - Sashi Bhushan Chaurasia S/o Nath Ram Aged About 43 Years R/o- Village- Mahganva, P.S.- Chainpur, District Palamu, Jharkhand, Present Address Railway Crossing Sudana, P.S. Daltonganj, Palamu, Jharkhand ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Chirmiri, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) 2 - Babula Goud S/o Sudarshan Goud Aged About 44 Years Bartunga Paraspani, Ward 26, P.S.- Chirmiri, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) (Cause title taken from CIS) ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Hamida Siddqui, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 25.09.2025 1. Heard Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1/State. 2. The present Cr.M.P. has been filed with the following prayer:- 1. The Hon'ble court kindly be pleased to Quash/set-aside FIR NO. 71/2016 dated 29/02/2016 (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Station Chirmiri, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.), in the interest of justice. 2. The Hon'ble court kindly be pleased to quash the chargesheet filed by the respondent bearing final report no. 25/2025, dated 03/04/2025 in FIR NO. 71/2016 dated 29/02/2026 registered at Police Station Chirmiri, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.). 3. The Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the cognizance dated 03/04/2025 passed by special criminal case no. 03/2025, pending before the Special Judge (PDI) Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.). 3 4. The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to Quash framing Charges under section 420/34 of Indian Penal Code, section 4 and 5 of Circulation of money Act and Section 10 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act. 5. The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to Quash the entire Criminal Proceedings pending against the Petitioner No. 1 in Session Trial No. 03/2025 pending before Learned Special Judge (Protection of Depositors Interest), Baikuntpur, District- Korea (C.G.). 6. Pass any such orders as the Hon'ble Court deems just, fit and proper, in the interest of Justice. 3. Brief facts of the case are that 29.02.2016, the complainant Babula Goud, lodged a written report at Chirimri Police Station District Korea alleging inter alia therein that the Directors/Agents of Welfare Building & Estates Pvt. Ltd., Chirmiri induced several residents of his ward, to deposit money in the form of recurring deposits and fixed deposits on the false assurance of doubling their invested amount in a short period, but on demand for repayment the company and its agents dishonestly evaded and refused to return the money, thereby committing fraud and cheating. The charge sheet bearing No. 25/2025 was filed before the learned Special 4 Judge (Protection of Depositors Interest Act), Baikunthpur, District Korea, on 03/04/2025, on which cognizance was taken on the same day and registered as Special Criminal Case No. 03/2025, wherein charges were framed on 07/08/2025. Moreover, this Court has already granted bail to applicant no. 1 in MCRC No. 2674/2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 is the Area Manager. He would submit that the petitioners have not been named in the FIR registered on 29.02.2016, yet the charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner only on 03.04.2025, and cognizance was also taken on the same day. It is further argued that the investors are being repaid by the Directors of the company, and insofar as the petitioners are concerned, there is no evidence to show their involvement in the alleged crime. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that Welfare Building and Estate Pvt. Ltd. is a real estate company and not registered with either the National Housing Bank or the Reserve Bank of India, as it does not fall under their category, and that the Securities and Exchange Board of India, after examination, has also given a clean chit by holding that it 5 is not a Collective Investment Scheme; further, as per the Memorandum and Articles of Association, the principal shareholders and liability holders are Malla Vijaya Prasad, Madduri Sreenivasa Rao and Akkireddi Sarveswara Rao, whereas the petitioner is neither a Director nor holds any significant position in the company but is only a retired person who had invested money therein, having no role in the transactions carried out exclusively by the Directors through the company’s ofÏcial bank accounts; it is urged that the company has been engaged in the real estate business since 2007 and had been regularly repaying investors, but owing to the financial crisis during the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic suffered heavy losses leading to delay in repayment, which by itself does not amount to the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC or under any special enactments. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioners, being Area Manager of the company in question, had induced people to invest money therein and were also paid commission for the same. It is further submitted that the case pertains to the year 2016, and although the charge sheet was filed only on 03.04.2025, 6 the delay occurred as some of the co-accused persons were absconding. 9. It was further submitted by the learned State counsel that both petitioners, though not directors, played a role in inducing investors and were thus implicated in the scheme of alleged cheating and breach of trust. Prima facie material exists against them, and a trial is necessary to determine the extent of their involvement. A private settlement with the complainant or declarations by Directors cannot absolve the petitioners at this stage, and quashing the FIR or charge-sheet would amount to stifling prosecution without trial. 7. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 8. Considering the allegations leveled against the petitioners, it appears that they had actively participated in inducing investors to deposit money into the company, and that a large number of investors were persuaded to invest. In the present case also, several ward members of the complainant are stated to have invested whopping amount in the company. The investigation has culminated in a charge-sheet and the learned trial Court has taken cognizance and framed charges 7 against petitioner. A charge-sheet followed by cognizance indicates that prima facie material was found by the Investigating OfÏcer which warranted trial. Once charges are framed, the scope for interference is even narrower. As held in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), quashing is permissible only where allegations taken at face value do not constitute any offence. 9. In view of the forgoing, the petition is devoid of merit stands dismissed. The learned trial Court shall proceed with the trial strictly in accordance with law. Nothing stated herein shall prejudice the defence of the petitioners at trial. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib