[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Sumit Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:15701-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 967 of 2026
Sumit Verma S/o Shatruhan Verma Aged About 32 Years R/o
Bherampurkala Chowki Jalbandha District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-
Gandai (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Khairagarh,
District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.)
2. Mahendra Deshmukh S/o Videshi Ram Deshmukh Aged About 47
Years R/o Ward No. 20, Rashim Devi Colony, P.S.- Khairagarh,
District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.)
...Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Government
Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
07.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
Digitally
signed by
BRIJMOHAN
heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate,
BRIJMOHAN MORLE
MORLE Date:
2026.04.07
17:45:18
appearing for the State/respondent No. 1.
+0530
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayers:
"i. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash/set-aside the impugned First Information
Report (FIR) No. 390 of 2023 registered at Police
Station Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-
Gandal (C.G.) for offences under Section 419 and 420
of the Indian Penal Code, in the interest of justice.
ii. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash/set-aside the entire charge-sheet No. 359 of
2023 filed on 22.10.2023 for offences under Section
419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, in the interest
of justice.
iii. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash/set-aside the order taking cognizance dated
27.10.2023 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate
Khairagarh Civil, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).
iv. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash/set-aside the entire criminal proceedings of the
criminal Case No. 932 of 2025, (State of C.G. vs.
Sumit Verma pending before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Khairagarh Civil, District Rajnandgaon
(C.G.), in the interest of justice."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the
prosecution case, a written complaint was lodged by the complainant
Mahendra Deshmukh before Police Station Khairagarh on 02.09.2023
alleging that the petitioner, being a grain merchant, had entered into a
transaction for purchase of gram (chana) collected by the complainant
and his relatives. It is alleged that the parties agreed at the rate of
Rs.5,000/- per quintal and about 32 tons of gram was transported
through various trucks on 11.05.2022, for which an advance amount of
Rs. 5,25,000/- was paid, with an assurance to pay the remaining
amount within 20-25 days.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the dispute
arises out of a commercial transaction and there was no dishonest
intention at the inception. It is contended that in the statement recorded
under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., the complainant himself admitted that
the petitioner had issued three cheques on 10.06.2023, which were
dishonoured on 02.08.2023 due to the account being blocked. However,
this material fact has been deliberately omitted in the FIR, which was
lodged after a considerable delay, thereby reflecting malafide intention.
He would submit that even if the entire allegations are taken at their
face value, the same would at best constitute a civil dispute relating to
non-payment of consideration and do not disclose the essential
ingredients of offences under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC, as there
is no element of fraudulent or dishonest inducement from the very
beginning. It is further submitted that the complainant has already
initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, which also indicates the civil nature of the dispute.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the FIR
has been registered mechanically to pressurize the petitioner and is a
clear abuse of the process of law. It is also contended that there is
inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and the guidelines laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, reported
in (2014) 8 SCC 273, have not been followed. In support of his
submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rikhab Birani & Another vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 823,
wherein, relying upon Sharif Ahmed & Another vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Another, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 726, it has
been held that to constitute an offence of cheating, dishonest intention
must exist at the time of entering into the transaction and a mere breach
of contract would not give rise to criminal prosecution.
6. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that even if the entire
charge-sheet is accepted as it is, no offence is made out against the
petitioner and the continuation of the criminal proceedings would
amount to abuse of process of law, and therefore, the same deserves to
be quashed.
7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and
submits that the present case discloses serious allegations of cheating,
wherein a substantial quantity of agricultural produce was taken by the
petitioner on the assurance of payment, however, the balance amount
has not been paid till date. It is submitted that despite repeated
demands, the petitioner failed to honour his commitment and even the
cheques issued by him were dishonoured, which prima facie
establishes dishonest conduct on his part. It is further contended that
the petitioner is attempting to give a civil colour to what is essentially a
criminal act. The investigation has been completed and charge-sheet
has been filed after due application of mind, and the learned trial Court
has already taken cognizance. It is argued that at this stage, no
interference is warranted and the defence sought to be raised by the
petitioner cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS').
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have
carefully perused the material placed on record.
9. Upon due consideration, this Court finds that the allegations made
in the FIR, coupled with the material collected during investigation,
disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner. The submissions
advanced on behalf of the petitioner pertain to disputed questions of
fact, including the nature of the transaction and the intention of the
parties, which cannot be adjudicated in the exercise of inherent
jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.
10. This Court is also of the considered opinion that merely because
the transaction has a commercial flavour, the same would not by itself
absolve the petitioner of criminal liability, particularly when the
allegations, if taken at their face value, indicate dishonest intention and
inducement. The plea sought to be raised by the petitioner that the
dispute is purely civil in nature cannot be accepted at this stage.
11. Further, from a perusal of the order-sheets of the learned trial
Court, it is evident that the petitioner has not approached this Court with
clean hands. The record reflects that he has been consistently avoiding
the proceedings before the trial Court by filing repeated applications,
thereby delaying the framing of charge. Such conduct clearly
demonstrates that the petitioner has adopted dilatory tactics to stall the
trial and has now invoked the jurisdiction of this Court with oblique
motives.
12. In the considered view of this Court, such conduct disentitles the
petitioner from any discretionary relief under Section 528 of the BNSS.
The The inherent powers of this Court are to be exercised sparingly and
with circumspection, and not in favour of a litigant who is attempting to
misuse the process of law.
13. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The
present petition, being devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed on this
ground alone.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan
