(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. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 528 of the
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
