Chattisgarh High Court
Manish Pal Singh Chhabra @ Rishi Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:11388-DB
ROHIT
KUMAR
NAFR
CHANDRA
Digitally signed
by ROHIT
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
KUMAR
CHANDRA
CRMP No. 664 of 2026
1 - Manish Pal Singh Chhabra @ Rishi Singh S/o- Charanjeet Singh
Chhabra Aged About 44 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Manish Pal
Chhabra In Cause Title Of Impugned Orders), R/o- N-12/MIG 05/5A,
Green Wood Sonata Sarachi, New Town, Near Rajarhat City Centre 02,
Rajarhat, 24 Pargana North, West Bengal (Near Rajarhat City Centre 02
Wrongly Not Mentioned In Cause Title Of Impugned Chargesheet)
2 - Sunita Kaur D/o Param Singh Kaur Aged About 35 Years R/o- 109
Maya Villa Krishnapur Tal Bagan, Rajarhat Gopalpura M North 24
Pargana, West Bengal, Previous Address- Quarter No. 9/A, Type- 2, C
Sector, District- Papum Pare, District- Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh
(Wrongly Mentioned As Present Address- Geeta Nagar, C Sector, Type
2 Quarter No. 09/A Pamum Para, PS- C Sector In The Cause Title Of
The Impugned Order)
... Petitioners
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer of Police
Station- Telibandha, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Jasprit Singh Bhatia S/o Late Harbhajan Singh Bhatia Aged About
42 Years R/o- Aaliya Villa, Anandam World City, Kachna, Police Station-
Khamardih, District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate
For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate
2
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
10.03.2026
1. Heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1.
2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the following prayers :-
"A. The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the of FIR bearing No. 375/2023 registered at P.S. Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G) dated 22.06.2023 at 21.50 hours under Sections 420, 409, 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 which was registered against the petitioners at instance of complaint made by respondent No. 02.
B. The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the Chargesheet dated 12.04.2025 bearing No. 151/2025 filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur filed in FIR bearing No. 375/2023 registered at P.S.- Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G) dated 22.06.2023 at 21.50 hours under Sections 420, 409, 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
C. The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the Criminal Proceedings 3 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class. Raipur (C.G) in Criminal Case No. 26947/2025 under Sections 420, 409,120B Indian Penal Code, 1860.
D. The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the cognizance order dated 29.05.2025 passed in Criminal Proceedings pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class. Raipur (C.G) in in Criminal Case No. 26947/2025 under Sections 420, 409, 120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioners.
E. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which it deems fit and proper."
3. The present matter arises out of FIR No. 375/2023 registered at Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) under Sections 420, 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioners and one co-accused person. The petitioners are directors of Prabhuji Etech Creations Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 with its registered office at Kolkata and engaged in the business of online sale of pooja samagri and related services such as pandit services, bhajan singers and pilgrimage arrangements. The complainant/respondent No. 02, who was engaged in a tours and travels business, came into contact with the company through co- accused Anshul Dave, a Chartered Accountant who allegedly acted as an agent of the company. It is alleged that the complainant was advised to invest in the company and thereafter 4 met petitioner No. 01 at Hotel Marriott on 06-07 November 2020. Subsequently, the complainant transferred an amount of ₹15,00,000 to the account of the company through RTGS on 21.01.2021 and allegedly paid an additional amount of ₹15,00,000 in cash to Anshul Dave between February and March 2021. Two other persons, namely Sumit Tiwari and Sahil Mehta, also invested ₹15,00,000 each in the company through RTGS. Thus, according to the prosecution, a total amount of ₹60,00,000 was invested by three persons. The complainant alleges that the petitioners induced him to invest in the company on the promise of profits and later misappropriated the amount. However, the petitioners contend that the complainant was duly allotted 2500 equity shares in the company on 18.02.2021 against the investment made by him, which was duly recorded in the minutes of meeting and reported to the Registrar of Companies through Form PAS-3, and a share certificate was also issued to him. It is further stated that the complainant participated in the affairs of the company and attended general meetings including the Extraordinary General Meeting held on 26.05.2022. Later, due to heavy financial losses, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, the company faced serious financial difficulties and ultimately ceased operations in June 2022. Thereafter, proceedings relating to the management of the company were initiated before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata by a major shareholder under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies 5 Act, 2013. Subsequently, the complainant lodged the present FIR alleging cheating and misappropriation.
4. Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the allegations made in the FIR are completely false and that the present dispute is purely civil and commercial in nature arising out of an investment made in a private company. It is contended that the complainant had voluntarily invested money in the company and was duly allotted equity shares equivalent to the amount invested by him, thereby making him a shareholder in the company. All statutory compliances required under the Companies Act, 2013 were duly followed, including passing of board resolutions, recording of allotment in the minutes of meetings, filing of Form PAS-3 with the Registrar of Companies and issuance of share certificates under Section 46 of the Companies Act. She further argued that the complainant actively participated in the affairs of the company and even gave his consent for conducting an Extraordinary General Meeting on shorter notice on 26.05.2022, which clearly indicates that he was aware of and involved in the functioning of the company. She also contended that the company later suffered severe financial losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic and adverse business conditions, which ultimately led to the closure of its operations in June 2022. She further contended that the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay, as the investment was made in January 2021 while the complaint was filed much later, 6 thereby indicating mala fide intent. It has been also contended that proceedings regarding the management and affairs of the company are already pending before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata, which shows that the matter essentially relates to corporate governance and shareholder disputes. It is further submitted that the ingredients of the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC are not satisfied as there was no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners at the time the investment was made. Reliance has also been placed on judicial precedents such as Sushil Sethi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 115 and Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam, reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 208 wherein the Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings should be quashed where the dispute is essentially civil in nature. She lastly submitted that the present FIR is an abuse of the process of law and falls within the categories laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 for quashing of criminal proceedings.
5. Ms. Singhvi contended that the petitioner No. 01 was not having the knowledge about the registration of the instant FIR and it was only on 7th March 2025, when the petitioner No. 01 was apprehended from his house in Kolkata by the police, that he came to know about the instant FIR. The petitioner No. 01 was later sent on Transit Remand and was granted bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur at the remand stage itself. 7 She also contented that the petitioner No. 02 was granted anticipatory bail by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Raipur, vide Bail Application No. 753/2025 order dated 28.03.2025. She also contended that after the petitioners were apprehended by the police, and in order to compromise the matter amicably the petitioner No. 01 has also returned an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in cash to the respondent No. 02 on 10.03.2025.
6. Per contra, the learned State Counsel submitted that the petitioners, in conspiracy with the co-accused Anshul Dave, dishonestly induced the complainant and other investors to invest substantial amounts of money in the company by projecting it as a profitable venture and promising attractive returns. It is contended that the petitioners misrepresented the financial prospects and business model of the company in order to gain the confidence of the complainant and persuade him to part with his money. The complainant invested a substantial amount on the assurance that he would receive profits and other business benefits, but the petitioners failed to honour their representations and instead misappropriated the funds invested by the complainant and other investors. He further argued that the acts of the petitioners clearly disclose the commission of offences under Sections 420, 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as they obtained money through fraudulent inducement and acted in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy. It is further submitted that the mere issuance of shares or maintenance of corporate records cannot absolve the 8 petitioners of criminal liability if the investment itself was obtained through deception. He also contended that the existence of civil remedies or proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal does not bar criminal prosecution where the allegations disclose the commission of cognizable offences, the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners and the matter requires a full trial to determine the culpability of the accused persons.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the material placed on record.
8. It is well settled that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 of BNSS) are to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, and only in cases where the allegations made in the complaint or FIR, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and constitute an abuse of the process of the Court. At this stage, the Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact.
9. In the present case, the allegations made in the FIR indicate that the complainant and other investors were induced by the accused persons to invest money in the company on the promise of profits and business opportunities. The complainant has alleged that the petitioners dishonestly misrepresented the financial prospects of 9 the company and thereby obtained money from him and other investors. Whether the representations made by the petitioners amounted to fraudulent inducement and whether the accused persons had dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction are matters that require appreciation of evidence and cannot be conclusively determined at this stage.
10. The contention of the petitioners that the complainant was allotted equity shares and that the dispute is purely civil in nature cannot, at this stage, be accepted as a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. It is settled law that the existence of a civil dispute or the availability of civil remedies does not bar criminal prosecution if the allegations disclose the commission of a criminal offence. The material placed on record indicates that the complainant has alleged deception and dishonest inducement on the part of the petitioners, which prima facie attracts the ingredients of the offences alleged in the FIR.
11. Furthermore, the issues raised by the petitioners regarding allotment of shares, participation of the complainant in company meetings, the financial losses suffered by the company, and the delay in lodging the FIR are all matters which involve disputed questions of fact. Such issues require detailed examination of evidence and cannot be appropriately adjudicated in a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings.
12. In view of the nature of the allegations and the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the FIR and 10 the subsequent investigation disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners. At this stage, it cannot be said that the criminal proceedings are manifestly mala fide or that the case falls within any of the exceptional categories laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, this Court finds no sufficient ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR or the consequential proceedings.
13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the present petition is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not prejudice the rights of the parties during the course of trial. The petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all permissible defences before the competent trial court in accordance with law.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Chandra