[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Gautam Das Manikpuri vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally
signed by 2026:CGHC:17972-DB
ANURADHA
ANURADHA TIWARI
TIWARI Date:
2026.04.22
NAFR
10:18:23
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1106 of 2026
Gautam Das Manikpuri S/o Late Shri Jagannath Manikpuri Aged About
70 Years R/o Village Thakurdiya, Thana - Bilaigarh, Distt. Sarangarh-
Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Balodabazar
Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
2 - Smt. Bhagwati Say W/o Shri Shivcharan Say Aged About 70 Years
R/o Village Bazarpara Kasdol, Thana And Tahsil - Kasdol, Distt.
Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent-State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
21.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, learned Deputy Government
Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1.
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 :-
"It, is therefore, prayed that the petition may kindly
be allowed and the FIR with chargesheet of Crime
No. 18/2026 registered at P.S. Kasdol, Distt.
Balodabazar- Bahatpara (C.G.), for offences
punishable u/s 420 of Indian Penal Code and the
order of taking cognizance dated 07.02.2026
passed in Criminal Case No. 68/2026 with
criminal proceedings pending before the Court of
JMFC Kasdol, Distt.-Balodabazar Bhatapara
(C.G.) may kindly be quashed, in the interest of
justice."
3. Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits
that the entire prosecution story, even if taken at its face value,
does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence and
is nothing but a colourable attempt to give a criminal hue to a
purely civil dispute arising out of an alleged agreement to sell. He
contends that the relationship between the parties emanates from
a contractual transaction dated 12.04.2015, and the allegations, at
best, pertain to non-performance of contractual obligations, for
which the appropriate remedy lies in a civil suit for specific
performance and not in initiating criminal proceedings for
cheating. He further submits that the complainant has failed to
demonstrate her readiness and willingness to perform her part of
the contract, which is a sine qua non for enforcement of an
agreement to sell. It is argued that after an inordinate and
unexplained delay of more than ten years, the complainant has
resorted to filing a complaint before the authorities only to
overcome the bar of limitation applicable to civil remedies. Such
belated initiation of criminal proceedings, without any
contemporaneous grievance, clearly indicates mala fide intention
and abuse of the process of law.
4. It is also contended by Mr. Shrivastava that prior to the
registration of the FIR, the petitioner himself had approached the
police authorities regarding the dispute, wherein the matter was
treated as civil in nature, and proceedings under Section 174 of
the BNS were initiated. Ignoring this aspect, the police, on
administrative directions, proceeded to register the FIR without
proper application of mind, thereby vitiating the entire criminal
proceedings. He further argues that there is no material collected
during investigation to substantiate the essential ingredients of the
offence of cheating, particularly the element of dishonest intention
at the inception of the transaction. On the contrary, the revenue
records continue to reflect the petitioner as the lawful owner and
title holder of the land, and there is no conclusive evidence to
establish that the property has been transferred to any third party.
Mere receipt of advance consideration or execution of an
agreement to sell does not confer any title upon the complainant.
It is lastly urged that continuation of the criminal proceedings
would amount to abuse of the process of Court, and therefore,
this Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR
as well as the consequential charge-sheet and proceedings
pending before the learned Magistrate.
5. On the other hand, Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, learned State counsel
opposes the petition and supports the impugned action. It is
submitted that the allegations made in the complaint, when read
in their entirety, clearly disclose the commission of a cognizable
offence, and therefore, the registration of the FIR and subsequent
filing of the charge-sheet cannot be faulted at this stage. It is
contended that the petitioner, after entering into an agreement to
sell with the complainant and receiving a substantial amount as
advance consideration, dishonestly dealt with the same property,
thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful
gain to himself, which squarely attracts the ingredients of the
offence of cheating. She further submits that the question as to
whether the transaction is purely civil in nature or involves
criminality is a matter of evidence, which cannot be conclusively
determined in proceedings under inherent jurisdiction. It is argued
that the existence of a civil remedy does not bar criminal
prosecution when the allegations prima facie disclose dishonest
intention and deception. The contention of the petitioner that the
dispute is purely civil is, therefore, misconceived.
6. It is submitted by Ms. Mahilong that the delay in lodging the FIR
has been sufficiently explained, inasmuch as the complainant
became aware of the subsequent dealings of the petitioner with
the land at a later stage, which prompted her to approach the
authorities. Moreover, the complaint was subjected to a
preliminary inquiry by the competent officer, and only thereafter,
upon satisfaction, directions were issued for registration of the
FIR. Hence, it cannot be said that the FIR has been lodged
mechanically or without application of mind. She contends that
during the course of investigation, relevant documents including
the agreement to sell and revenue records have been collected,
and upon due consideration of the material, a charge-sheet has
been filed before the competent Court, which has already taken
cognizance. At this stage, meticulous appreciation of evidence is
impermissible, and the Court is only required to see whether a
prima facie case exists, which is clearly made out in the present
matter. As such, the present petition is devoid of merit, and the
petitioner is seeking premature interference by this Court in a
matter which requires adjudication on evidence during trial.
Therefore, the petition for quashing deserves to be dismissed.
7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the documents annexed with the present petition.
8. From perusal of the charge-sheet, it transpires that the
prosecution case originates from a written complaint dated
12.07.2025 submitted by the complainant Bhagwati Sai, alleging
that the present petitioner, after entering into an agreement to sell
agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 2097 admeasuring 1.028
hectares for a total consideration of Rs.8,60,000/-, had received
an advance amount of Rs.3,20,000/- and handed over possession
of the land to her. It further emerges that despite repeated
requests for execution of the registered sale deed, the petitioner
avoided the same on one pretext or the other, and subsequently
permitted another person, namely Prakash Kumar Sahu, to
cultivate the said land, thereby giving rise to the allegation of
deception and cheating.
9. The charge-sheet further reveals that the complaint was subjected
to a preliminary inquiry by the SDOP, Kasdol, wherein prima facie
material was found indicating that the petitioner had acted with
dishonest intention, causing wrongful loss to the complainant.
Pursuant to directions issued by the Superintendent of Police, an
FIR bearing Crime No. 18/2026 under Section 420 IPC was
registered, and the matter was taken up for investigation in
accordance with law.
10. During the course of investigation, the investigating agency
inspected the spot, prepared the necessary panchnamas and site
map, and collected relevant revenue records including B-1 and
khasra entries from the concerned Patwari. Statements of the
complainant and other witnesses were duly recorded under law.
The agreement executed on a stamp paper was also seized. On
appreciation of the material so collected, the investigating agency
came to the conclusion that the petitioner had indeed executed an
agreement, received substantial consideration, and thereafter
acted in a manner inconsistent with his earlier representation,
thereby prima facie establishing the element of dishonest
intention.
11. Significantly, the investigation has also clarified that no material
was found to substantiate the allegation that the land had been
legally transferred in favour of Prakash Kumar Sahu; accordingly,
no offence was found to be made out against him. However,
insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, the investigating
agency has categorically opined that his conduct resulted in
wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to himself,
thus attracting the offence of cheating. On the basis of the
evidence collected, charge-sheet No. 25/2026 dated 05.02.2026
has been filed before the competent Court, which has already
taken cognizance.
12. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual matrix, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the submissions advanced on behalf of
the petitioner do not merit acceptance at this stage. The
contentions raised pertain predominantly to disputed questions of
fact, including the nature of the transaction, readiness and
willingness of the complainant, and the actual possession and title
over the property, all of which require appreciation of evidence
and cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings.
13. It is well settled that at the stage of considering a petition for
quashing, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous
examination of the evidence or to adjudicate upon the veracity of
the allegations. If the allegations made in the complaint and the
material collected during investigation disclose the commission of
a cognizable offence, the proceedings ought not to be scuttled at
the threshold. In the present case, the material on record prima
facie indicates that the petitioner, after receiving a substantial
advance amount under an agreement to sell, failed to honour his
commitment and dealt with the property in a manner suggestive of
deception, thereby satisfying the essential ingredients of the
offence alleged.
14. The plea of the petitioner that the dispute is purely civil in nature
also does not impress this Court. Merely because a civil remedy
may be available does not preclude the initiation of criminal
proceedings where the allegations disclose the necessary mens
rea. The existence of a parallel civil dispute cannot be a ground to
quash criminal proceedings when prima facie elements of
cheating are made out. Furthermore, the delay in lodging the
complaint, as sought to be highlighted by the petitioner, cannot be
said to be fatal at this juncture, particularly when the complainant
has explained that the cause of action arose upon discovering the
subsequent conduct of the petitioner. Such aspects are matters of
trial and cannot be conclusively determined in the present
proceedings.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that a prima
facie case is made out against the petitioner, and the charge-
sheet discloses sufficient material warranting continuation of the
criminal proceedings. Interference at this stage would amount to
stifling a legitimate prosecution.
16. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby
dismissed. The interim relief, if any, stands vacated. It is,
however, clarified that any observations made herein are only for
the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not
prejudice the trial Court while adjudicating the matter on merits.
17. There shall be no order as to cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Anu
