[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Rajesh Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:15239-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 914 of 2026
Rajesh Sharma S/o Prakash Sharma Aged About 31 Years Occuption-
Advocate R/o Near Saroj Bhawan, Gudiyari, Raipur, (CG) P.S.-
Gudiyari, District- Raipur (Cg)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police
Station- Gol Bazar, Raipur, District- Raipur (CG)
2 - Dhananjai Nandi S/o Late Harendra Nandi Aged About 31 Years R/o
Maitri Sangh Gali, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Ward, Kumharpara,
Jagdalpur (Cg) P.S.- City Kotwali, District- Jagdalpur (CG)
(Complainant)
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate
For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
02.04.2026
1 Heard Mr. Ankit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for
the State/respondent No.1.
ROHIT
KUMAR
2 The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been
CHANDRA
preferred by the petitioners with the following prayers :-
"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may kindly be pleased to quash and set-aside the
impugned FIR dated 16.02.2026 (Annexure P-1)
registered against the petitioner bearing Crime No.
0030/2016, registered at Police Station Gol Bazar,
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offences
punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471
of IPC, in the interest of justice."
3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present FIR
is wholly misconceived, vague, and without any basis against the
petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has been implicated
merely on the allegation that he was introduced as a Patwari and
allegedly prepared certain documents, which is patently false, as
the petitioner is a practicing Advocate and had been engaged by
the complainant himself in revenue proceedings at Raipur in a
professional capacity. The revenue proceedings and documents
clearly demonstrate that the petitioner acted solely as an
Advocate, and his name does not even appear once in the
Tehsildar's proceedings, establishing that he was not acting as
any government official. It is further submitted that the alleged
financial transactions largely pertain to two cheques of
₹20,00,000/- each, issued by co-accused Rahul Banik, which are
already subject matter of separate proceedings under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by the complainant's
mother (Complainant Case No. 563/2025 & 569/2025,
ANNEXURE P/4), in which the petitioner has not been made an
accused, thereby negating any liability or involvement. The FIR
itself records that co-accused Rahul Banik admitted liability and
issued cheques towards repayment, clearly indicating that the
dispute is purely civil and monetary in nature. It is also submitted
that prior to the registration of the FIR, the petitioner along with
co-accused Rahul Banik had lodged multiple complaints before
senior police authorities regarding non-payment of ₹50,000/- and
harassment by the complainant, and the co-accused had also
approached this Hon'ble Court in WPCR No. 91/2026, which was
disposed of with liberty under Section 175(3) BNSS. He lastly
submitted that though certain amounts of ₹60,000/- and ₹90,000/-
were routed through the petitioner's account, but immediately
transferred to co-accused Rahul Banik and the petitioner has not
retained any amount or derived any wrongful gain.
4 Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that the petition is
misconceived and not maintainable. The FIR prima facie
discloses cognizable offences, and the petitioner's alleged role in
preparing documents or being introduced as a Patwari is a matter
for investigation, which cannot be pre-judged at this stage. He
further submitted that the pendency of civil or Section 138 NI Act
proceedings does not bar criminal investigation, as held in State
of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) 1 SCC 335 . The routing of
amounts through the petitioner's account and prior complaints
lodged by him or co-accused are matters requiring inquiry.
Interference at this stage would amount to pre-empting the
investigation.
5 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
record, this Court finds that the petitioners are seeking quashing
of the FIR on the basis that the petitioner acted in a professional
capacity as an Advocate and was not involved in any wrongful
gain.
6 The Court observes that the allegations in the FIR, including the
preparation of certain documents and involvement in financial
transactions, prima facie disclose cognizable offences. The
petitioner's role and the facts alleged, including routing of
amounts through his account, are matters requiring detailed
investigation. The pendency of civil or Section 138 NI Act
proceedings does not bar criminal investigation, as held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,
(1992) 1 SCC 335. At this stage, it is neither permissible nor
appropriate to examine the merits or veracity of the allegations,
and interference would amount to pre-empting the investigation.
7 Accordingly, in view of the above, the Court finds no ground to
exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction and holds that the present
petition is devoid of merit. The petition is, therefore, dismissed,
allowing the investigation to proceed unhindered.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Chandra
