Chattisgarh High Court
Akash Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 July, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
CGHC010255782026 2026:CGHC:27885-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1739 of 2026
1. Akash Singh S/o Samar Bahadur Singh Aged About 36 Years R/o
Royal Park Colony, P.S. Gandhinagar, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja,
Chhattisgarh.
2. Smt. Shikha Singh W/o Akash Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o
Royal Park Colony, P.S. Gandhinagar, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja,
Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry of Home,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
2. The Station House Officer P.S. Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur,
Chhattisgarh.
3. Vishal Gupta S/o Late Shyam Bihari Gupta Aged About 28 Years
R/o Ketka Road, Near Electricity Office, Surajpur, P.S. Surajpur,
Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
...Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
Digitally
signed by
BRIJMOHAN
BRIJMOHAN MORLE
MORLE Date:
2026.07.08
17:38:37
+0530
2For Petitioners : Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government
Advocate.
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice07.07.2026
1. Heard Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioners. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government
Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 & 2.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the
following prayer:
“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this
petition by exercising its inherent jurisdiction under
Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 and in exercise thereof call
for the records (if necessary), admit the petition and
further, to quash the FIR dated 05.04.2026 (Annexure
P/1) registered at Police Station Surajpur, District
Surajpur (C.G.) bearing Crime No. 208 of 2026 for the
offence punishable under Section 420, 506 and 34 of
the IPC against the petitioners and/or pass such other
orders in favour of the petitioner as this Hon’ble Court
3may deem it fit in the facts and circumstances of the
case.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 1 is
engaged in the business of purchase and sale of immovable properties
at Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), whereas petitioner No. 2 is merely
the wife of petitioner No. 1 and has no role whatsoever in the alleged
transaction. He further submitted that petitioner No. 1 came into contact
with Rajendra Gupta @ Rajan Gupta, who is the maternal uncle
(Mausa) of respondent No. 3/complainant and is engaged in the
business of land brokerage. During negotiations for purchase of a plot
situated at Royal Park, Ambikapur, petitioner No. 1 handed over a
signed cheque of Rs.9,00,000/- to Rajendra Gupta merely as a security
for the proposed land transaction. The said cheque was never issued in
favour of the complainant nor towards any alleged investment in share
market trading.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that taking
undue advantage of the fact that petitioner No. 1 was implicated in FIR
No. 156/2025 registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, Ambikapur,
relating to an alleged share market investment, the complainant, in
connivance with Rajendra Gupta, has falsely implicated the petitioners
in the present case. It is submitted that though the bail application of
petitioner No. 1 was rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 5289 of 2025
vide order dated 09.07.2025, he was subsequently enlarged on bail by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10.12.2025 passed in SLP
4
(Crl.) No. 15531 of 2025. He further submitted that the allegation in the
FIR that the petitioners received Rs.9,00,000/- in cash from the
complainant at Surajpur on 22.03.2024 for investment in share trading
is wholly false. On the alleged date of the incident, the petitioners were
at Indore (M.P.) and were not present at Surajpur. The petitioners have
never induced the complainant to invest any amount nor had any
financial dealings with him. Petitioner No. 2 has been unnecessarily
implicated despite having no connection with the alleged transaction.
5. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
the impugned FIR has been lodged after an unexplained delay of nearly
two years and is nothing but an attempt to convert a dispute arising out
of a security cheque into a criminal prosecution. Even otherwise, if the
cheque had been issued towards any alleged liability, the complainant
had an efficacious remedy under the Negotiable Instruments Act, which
has deliberately not been invoked. He also contended that the
allegations made in the impugned FIR, even if accepted in their entirety,
do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against
the petitioners. The prosecution is manifestly mala fide and has been
initiated only to harass the petitioners by giving a criminal colour to a
purely civil dispute. Continuation of the impugned proceedings would
amount to an abuse of the process of law.
6. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners respectfully
submits that the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom deserve to be quashed by this Court.
5
7. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the
petition and submitted that the impugned FIR discloses specific and
categorical allegations against both the petitioners. It is contended that
the complainant has specifically alleged that the petitioners induced him
to invest in share market trading by assuring him of assured and
substantial returns, received a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- in cash from him,
issued a cheque towards the said amount, failed to return the money
despite repeated demands and thereafter threatened him with dire
consequences, including implicating him in a false criminal case and
causing his death. It is submitted that these allegations, if taken at their
face value, clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences
punishable under Sections 420, 506 and 34 of the IPC. It is further
submitted that the defence projected by the petitioners, namely that the
cheque was issued only as a security for a proposed land transaction
with Rajendra Gupta and that the petitioners were present at Indore on
the date of the alleged incident, involves disputed questions of fact
which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’). It is,
therefore, prayed that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
material available on record.
9. The legal position governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction
under Section 528 of the BNSS is well settled. The jurisdiction to quash
an FIR is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised
6
sparingly, with great circumspection and only in exceptional cases.
Ordinarily, the High Court should not interfere with the investigation of
cognizable offences. However, where the allegations contained in the
FIR, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do
not prima facie disclose the commission of any offence or continuation
of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of
law, the Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of 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. & Ors, reported in 2000 SCC
(Cri) 615, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held that if a prima facie
case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should
not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do
not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd
and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The
note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the
Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there
is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie
case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof
cannot be quashed.
11. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra,
reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 the Hon’ble Supreme Court
authoritatively held that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under
7
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 of the
BNSS), the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the
reliability or genuineness of the allegations, appreciate the evidence or
conduct a mini trial. The Court is only required to examine whether the
allegations contained in the FIR, taken at their face value, disclose the
commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court further
observed that investigation into cognizable offences should ordinarily be
permitted to proceed unhindered and criminal proceedings should not
be scuttled at the threshold except in exceptional circumstances.
12. Recently, in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No.3831 of 2025, decided on
02.09.2025), the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid
principles and held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528
of the BNSS, the High Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of
fact or evaluate the evidentiary value of the material collected during
investigation. It was further held that criminal proceedings can be
quashed only where the material relied upon by the accused is of
sterling and impeccable quality, completely demolishes the prosecution
case and continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of the
process of law.
13. A perusal of the impugned FIR reveals that respondent
No.3/complainant alleged that he came in contact with petitioner No.1
through his maternal uncle, Rajendra Gupta, at Ambikapur. According to
the FIR, petitioner No.1 represented himself to be engaged in share
8
market trading and, along with petitioner No.2, induced the complainant
to invest money by assuring him of substantial returns and that there
would be no risk of loss. It is further alleged that on 22.03.2024 at about
11:00 a.m., both the petitioners came to Surajpur where the
complainant handed over a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- in cash to them near
the Old Rest House for investment in the share market. The FIR further
alleges that petitioner No.1 issued a cheque for Rs.9,00,000/- as
security and assured the complainant that the amount would be doubled
and returned within a few months. It is also alleged that despite
repeated demands, the petitioners failed to return the amount and
subsequently threatened the complainant with false implication in a
criminal case and with death. On the basis of these allegations, the
impugned FIR came to be registered for offences punishable under
Sections 420, 506 and 34 of the IPC.
14. Examining the allegations contained in the FIR in the light of the
settled legal principles, this Court finds that the FIR contains specific
assertions regarding inducement by the petitioners, delivery of
Rs.9,00,000/- by the complainant, issuance of a cheque by petitioner
No.1, failure to return the amount despite repeated demands and
subsequent criminal intimidation. At this stage, the Court is required to
proceed on the assumption that the allegations contained in the FIR are
true and cannot examine their correctness or otherwise. The
allegations, if accepted on their face value, prima facie disclose the
ingredients of the offences alleged and, therefore, cannot be said to be
so absurd or inherently improbable as to warrant interference at the
9
threshold.
15. The defence put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that the cheque in question was issued merely as a security in
connection with a proposed land transaction with Rajendra Gupta, that
the complainant had no financial dealings with them and that the
petitioners were present at Indore on the date of the alleged
occurrence, are all matters which involve disputed questions of fact.
Similarly, the plea that petitioner No.2 has been falsely implicated and
had no role in the alleged transaction also requires appreciation of
evidence. Such disputed factual issues cannot be adjudicated while
exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, as doing
so would amount to conducting a mini trial, which is impermissible in
law.
16. The submission of the petitioners that the dispute is purely civil in
nature and that the complainant ought to have availed the remedy
under the Negotiable Instruments Act also does not persuade this Court
to exercise its inherent jurisdiction. The FIR does not merely allege non-
payment of money or dishonour of a cheque; rather, it contains specific
allegations that the complainant was induced to part with Rs.9,00,000/-
on the promise of lucrative returns in share market trading and that after
receiving the amount, the petitioners neither returned the money nor
honoured their assurances and further extended threats when
repayment was demanded. Whether these allegations are ultimately
established is a matter of evidence, but at this stage they cannot be
10
brushed aside merely because the transaction may also give rise to a
civil remedy.
17. This Court is of the considered opinion that the material relied
upon by the petitioners, including their plea regarding the purpose of
issuance of the cheque and their alleged presence at Indore on the date
of the incident, cannot be said to be of such sterling and impeccable
character as to completely demolish the prosecution case at the
threshold. The rival versions require proper investigation and cannot be
conclusively adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the
BNSS. The allegations made in the FIR require a thorough investigation
so that the truthfulness or otherwise of the accusations can be
ascertained in accordance with law.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the present case does not fall within any of the exceptional
categories warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section
528 of the BNSS, as illustratively carved out by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Neeharika (supra) and reiterated in Pradeep Kumar
Kesharwani (supra). The allegations contained in the impugned FIR, if
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, prima facie
disclose that the petitioners induced the complainant to invest in share
market trading on the assurance of assured returns, received a sum of
Rs.9,00,000/- from him, failed to repay the amount despite repeated
demands and thereafter threatened him with false implication and dire
consequences. The defence sought to be projected by the petitioners,
11
namely that the cheque was issued merely as a security for a proposed
land transaction and that they were not present at Surajpur on the date
of the alleged occurrence, involves disputed questions of fact requiring
investigation and appreciation of evidence. Such issues cannot be
adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS.
Consequently, this Court finds no ground to exercise its extraordinary
inherent jurisdiction for quashing the impugned FIR or the consequential
proceedings.
19. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be
and is hereby dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the
observations made herein are confined only to the adjudication of the
present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS and shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The
Investigating Agency shall proceed with the investigation independently,
strictly in accordance with law and uninfluenced by any observation
made in this order.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan
