Chattisgarh High Court
Santosh Kumar Prajapati vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally 2026:CGHC:14881-DB
signed by
ANURADHA
ANURADHA TIWARI
TIWARI Date:
NAFR
2026.04.02
10:35:50
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 854 of 2026
Santosh Kumar Prajapati S/o Late Sugriv Parasad Prajapati Aged About
48 Years R/o House No. 544, Dalmia Vihar, Rajpura, PS- Rajpura,
District- Patiala (Punjab)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer of Police
Station- Durg Kotwali, District- Durg (CG)
2 - Smt. Rekha Pandey W/o Yogesh Pandey Aged About 27 Years R/o
House N. 824, Street No. 09, Behind Puri ITI, Chandra Nagar, Kohka,
Bhilai, Police Chowki- Smriti Nagar, PS- Supela, Bhilai, District- Durg
(CG)
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, 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 Justice 01.04.2026
1. Heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1.
2
2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'B.N.S.S.') praying for following relief(s) :-
"A. The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR bearing No. 1112/2022 registered at P.S. Durg Kotwali, District Durg (C.G) dated 12.10.2022 at 23.40 hours under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 upon complaint made by the respondent No. 02.
B. The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the Chargesheet dated 18.09.2025 bearing No. 278/2025 filed before Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg filed in FIR bearing No. 1112/2022 registered at P.S.-
Durg Kotwali, District Durg (C.G) dated 12.10.2022 at 23.40 hours under Sections 420, 34, 199 and 200 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
C. The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the Criminal Proceedings pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg(C.G) in in Regular Criminal Case No. 35447/2025 under Sections 420, 34, 199 and 200 Indian Penal Code, 1860.
D. The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the cognizance order dated 12.11.2025 passed in Criminal Proceedings pending before Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg(C.G) in in Regular Criminal Case No. 35447/2025 under Sections 420, 34, 199 and 200 Indian Penal Code, 1860.3
E. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which it deems fit and proper."
3. Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case arising out of FIR No. 1112/2022 registered at Police Station Durg Kotwali, District Durg, under Sections 420, 34, 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is contended that the entire dispute stems from a transaction relating to sale of immovable property, which is purely civil in nature, and has been given a criminal colour only with a view to harass and pressurize the petitioner. She further submits that the petitioner is a resident of Patiala, Punjab, and had executed a registered power of attorney in favour of co-accused Manju Pandit on 27.06.2022 along with other family members, authorizing her to deal with the property. However, the said power of attorney was subsequently cancelled vide registered deed dated 31.10.2022 when it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that the said co-accused was acting beyond her authority and not in the interest of the family. Despite having knowledge of such cancellation, the co-accused independently proceeded to execute the sale deed on 09.11.2022 and received the entire sale consideration, without any involvement or consent of the petitioner.
4. Ms. Singhvi submits that the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any role of the petitioner in the 4 alleged offence. It is contended that except for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- which was credited in the joint account of the petitioner and his deceased mother, the petitioner has neither received any part of the alleged consideration nor participated in the execution of the sale deed. She submits that the petitioner is willing to return the said amount, without prejudice to his rights, which further demonstrates his bonafides.
5. It is further submitted by Ms. Singhvi that the dispute between the parties is already subject matter of a civil suit for declaration and cancellation of the sale deed, which is pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court. In addition, proceedings initiated at the instance of the petitioner under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. have also resulted in registration of a separate FIR against the complainant and other accused persons, and the charge-sheet in the said case has been filed only against co-accused Manju Pandit, thereby substantiating that the petitioner had no role in the alleged transaction. She also ubmits that the co-accused Manju Pandit had also approached this Court by filing CRMP No.395/2026, however, the same came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06.02.2026, without any liberty to file afresh, which also indicates the lack of merit in the case set up by the prosecution insofar as the alleged transaction is concerned.
6. Ms. Singhvi also submits that the present case is a classic example of abuse of process of law, falling within the parameters 5 laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 as the criminal proceedings have been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to coerce the petitioner. Reliance is placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushil Sethi vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 115 and Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy vs. Sudha Seetharam, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 208, to contend that where the dispute is predominantly civil and the essential ingredients of cheating are not made out, continuation of criminal proceedings would be unjustified. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and is already on bail. In such circumstances, continuation of the impugned proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court and is liable to be quashed.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned State counsel, vehemently opposes the petition and submits that the present case discloses commission of cognizable offences and, therefore, does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. He submits that the FIR and the material collected during investigation clearly reveal that the petitioner, along with other co-accused persons, was part of a larger scheme to induce the complainant to part with substantial amounts of money on the pretext of sale of land. He further submits that the property in question admittedly belonged to the petitioner and his family members and that the co-accused Manju Pandit was acting 6 as a power of attorney holder on their behalf. It is contended that the initial amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was transferred to the account of the petitioner's mother, which prima facie establishes a direct financial link of the petitioner with the alleged transaction. He submits that such receipt of money cannot be brushed aside at this stage and requires proper adjudication during trial.
8. It is further submitted by Mr. Rathi that the contention of the petitioner that the dispute is purely civil in nature is misconceived, inasmuch as the allegations disclose dishonest intention from the very inception of the transaction. The complainant was induced to enter into the agreement and part with money on the assurance of execution of sale deed, however, the conduct of the accused persons, including non-cooperation at the time of execution and subsequent acts, clearly indicate elements of cheating and misrepresentation. He also submits that merely because a civil suit has been filed by the petitioner would not bar the initiation or continuation of criminal proceedings, particularly when the ingredients of the offences alleged are prima facie made out. It is well settled that civil and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously if the facts disclose both civil liability and criminal culpability.
9. Mr. Rathi submits that the investigation in the present case has been conducted in accordance with law and sufficient material has been collected to proceed against the accused persons. At 7 this stage, this Court ought not to embark upon a meticulous examination of evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact, which can only be determined during the course of trial. It is thus submitted that the petitioner has failed to make out any case falling within the limited parameters for quashing of FIR or criminal proceedings, and the present petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed.
10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the present petition.
11. From perusal of the charge-sheet, it appears that the allegations against the accused persons arise out of a transaction relating to sale of immovable property, wherein the complainant is alleged to have been induced to part with a substantial amount of money on the assurance that a registered sale deed in respect of the subject land would be executed in her favour. The material collected during the course of investigation, including the statements of the complainant, witnesses, and the documentary evidence forming part of the charge-sheet, prima facie suggests that negotiations for sale were undertaken through co-accused Manju Pandit, who was acting in the capacity of a power of attorney holder on behalf of the petitioner and his family members.
12. It further transpires from the record that pursuant to such representations, the complainant transferred an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- through banking channels to the account of the 8 petitioner's family, along with certain cash components, as part of the agreed sale consideration. The said transfer of funds, at this stage, prima facie establishes a financial linkage and nexus between the petitioner and the transaction in question. The sequence of events, as reflected from the charge-sheet, including the preparation of documents, presence of parties at the Registrar's office, and subsequent developments culminating in execution of the sale deed, are all matters which, taken together, give rise to a prima facie inference of involvement that cannot be conclusively dislodged without a full-fledged trial.
13. Thus, the material on record, at this stage, cannot be said to be devoid of substance so as to completely absolve the petitioner of all connection with the alleged transaction, and the same warrants appreciation of evidence during trial rather than adjudication in proceedings of the present nature.
14. At this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner was wholly unconnected with the alleged transaction, as the property admittedly belongs to him and his family members and the acts of the power of attorney holder, at least prima facie, appear to have been carried out on their behalf. Whether the power of attorney had been validly cancelled prior to execution of the sale deed dated 09.11.2022, and whether the petitioner had knowledge of or participation in the subsequent acts of the co-accused, are disputed questions of fact which require appreciation of evidence 9 and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S.
15. This Court also finds it relevant to note that the co-accused Manju Pandit had approached this Court by filing CRMP No. 395/2026; however, the said petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06.02.2026 and that too without any liberty to file afresh. The said circumstance also does not advance the case of the present petitioner in any manner so as to warrant interference at this stage.
16. The contention of the petitioner that the dispute is purely civil in nature also does not persuade this Court at this stage. Merely because a civil suit has been instituted in respect of the same transaction would not ipso facto bar the criminal proceedings, particularly when the allegations, on their face, disclose ingredients of offences such as cheating and misrepresentation. The existence of a civil remedy and the pendency of civil proceedings do not preclude criminal prosecution where the factual matrix indicates the commission of a cognizable offence.
17. This Court is conscious of the settled legal position that the inherent powers under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. are to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and only in cases where the allegations in the FIR and the material on record do not disclose any offence or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides. In the present case, however, the 10 material collected during investigation cannot be said to be so deficient so as to warrant quashing of the proceedings at the threshold.
18. So far as the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, namely Bhajan Lal (supra), Sushil Sethi (supra) and Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy (supra), the same are clearly distinguishable on facts. In those cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the allegations did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged or that the dispute was purely civil without any element of criminality. In the present case, however, the material on record prima facie indicates inducement, receipt of money, and subsequent conduct which cannot be said to be devoid of criminal elements at this stage. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments would not come to the aid of the petitioner.
19. At this juncture, this Court cannot embark upon a roving enquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations, nor can it appreciate the defence sought to be raised by the petitioner, including the plea of absence of mens rea or lack of involvement, which are matters to be tested during the course of trial. The defence of the petitioner, including the effect of cancellation of the power of attorney and the subsequent conduct of the co-accused, are all issues which require adjudication on the basis of evidence led before the trial Court.
11
20. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not fall within the limited parameters warranting interference under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. The allegations, as reflected in the charge-sheet, do disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner and, therefore, no ground is made out for quashing of the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings.
21. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Needless to observe that any observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not prejudice the case of either party during the trial.
22. There shall be no order as to cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Anu