Umesh Kumar Nirmalkar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 126 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Umesh Kumar Nirmalkar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 February, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                           1




         Digitally
         signed by
                                                                          2026:CGHC:10225-DB
                                                                                      NAFR
         ANURADHA
ANURADHA TIWARI
TIWARI   Date:
         2026.02.28
         10:28:16

                                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
         +0530




                                               WPCR No. 100 of 2026
                      Umesh Kumar Nirmalkar S/o Pawan Kumar Nirmalkar Aged About 32
                      Years R/o Nayapara Ward No. 4, Near Sharda Mandir, Mahasamund,
                      District- Mahasamund (C.G.)
                                                                                     ... Petitioner
                                                        versus
                      1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Home,
                      Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District-
                      Raipur (C.G.)
                      2 - Director General of Police Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
                      3 - Superintendent of Police Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund
                      (C.G.)
                      4 - Station House Officer Police Station- Mahasamund, District-
                      Mahasamund (C.G.)
                                                                                ... Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Dr. Arpit Lall, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

27.02.2026

1 Heard Dr. Arpit Lall, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate,

appearing for the State/respondents.

2 The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for following

reliefs:-

"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the First Information Report bearing Crime No. 42/2022 registered at Police Station Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) and Charge Sheet/Final Report bearing No. 132/2022 and order taking cognizance dated 13.05.2022 for the offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and filed before CJM, subsequent criminal proceedings Mahasamund (C.G.).

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order whereby the complainant may kindly be directed to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and lodging false FIR against the petitoner with malafide intention.

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner."

3 Brief facts of the case are that the complainant, Dharmendra

Mahobiya, was working as a Senior Business Associate in LIC

and had engaged the present petitioner, Umesh Kumar Nirmalkar,

to work in his office. As per the prosecution case, on 17.12.2021 it

was alleged that the petitioner had collected policy premium

amounts from certain customers but did not deposit the same in

the LIC office and instead misappropriated the amount for his

personal use. It is further alleged that the petitioner prepared false

receipts in the name of the complainant, affixed a forged seal

thereon and issued such receipts to the policy holders. On the

basis of the said allegations, an FIR was lodged against the

petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468

and 471 of the IPC, and after completion of investigation, charge-

sheet has been filed.

4 According to the petitioner, however, he was primarily performing

clerical and computer-related duties such as maintaining office

registers and assisting in data entry work. It is his case that he

had limited access to the computer system and that the main

control, including the passcode required for depositing premium

amounts, was exclusively with the complainant. The premium

amounts were allegedly transferred directly by customers to the

complainant's bank account through NEFT, and the petitioner

merely maintained entries as reflected in the account details. The

petitioner asserts that upon his refusal to make certain false

entries in the register at the instance of the complainant, he was

threatened and subsequently falsely implicated in the present

case. During investigation, only three registers and one pen drive

were seized from him and no forged seal or fabricated receipt

book was recovered.

5 Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking

quashment of the FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential

proceedings.

6 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the lodging of the

impugned First Information Report against the petitioner is nothing

but a result of mala fide intention and a well-orchestrated

conspiracy to falsely implicate him with an ulterior motive of

wreaking vengeance.

7 It is contended that the criminal machinery has been set into

motion not on account of any genuine criminal act, but to

pressurize and harass the petitioner. It is further submitted that

even if the entire allegations made in the FIR and the charge-

sheet are taken at their face value, the essential ingredients of the

offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC are not

attracted in the facts of the present case.

8 Learned counsel places reliance upon the recent decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v.

State of Andhra Pradesh and another, SLP (Crl.)

No.9744/2024, wherein the essential ingredients of the offence of

cheating have been reiterated. It is submitted that to constitute an

offence under Section 420 IPC, there must be (i) deception of a

person by making a false representation which the accused

knows or has reason to believe to be false, and (ii) fraudulent or

dishonest inducement to deliver property or to consent to

retention of property, or intentional inducement to do or omit to do

something which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm. He

submits that in view of Sections 23, 24 and 25 IPC, "dishonestly"

requires an intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss, and

"fraudulently" requires an intent to defraud. Reading these

definitions in conjunction with Section 415 IPC, it is evident that

intention at the inception of the transaction is the sine qua non for

attracting the offence of cheating. In the present case, no such

dishonest or fraudulent intention at the inception has been alleged

or demonstrated.

9 Reliance is further placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Dr. Sharma's Nursing Home v. Delhi

Administration and others, (1998) 8 SCC 745, wherein it has

been held that mere deception by itself would not constitute

cheating unless dishonest inducement is established. It is argued

that in the present case, the prosecution has merely alleged

deception without establishing any material to show deliberate

intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss.

10 Learned counsel also relies upon Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma

and others v. State of Bihar and another, (2004) 4 SCC 168,

wherein it has been categorically held that intention is the gist of

the offence under Section 420 IPC and that such intention must

exist at the time when the representation is made. In the absence

of any material to show that the petitioner intentionally submitted

any fake transaction receipt with the intent to induce delivery of

property, the basic ingredient of dishonest inducement is

conspicuously absent.

11 With regard to the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC,

learned counsel submits that the prosecution has failed to

establish that the petitioner made any forged document or had

knowledge of the alleged forgery. Placing reliance on Sheila

Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj and another, (2018) 7 SCC 581, it is

contended that to attract Section 464 IPC, it must be shown that

the accused himself made the false document. In the present

case, no material has been placed on record in the charge-sheet

connecting the petitioner with the preparation of any forged

document. Similarly, the essential mens rea required for Sections

468 and 471 IPC has not been demonstrated. It is further

submitted that the alleged premium transactions were carried out

electronically and directly through banking channels, and there is

no material to show wrongful gain to the petitioner or wrongful

loss to the complainant by unlawful means.

12 Learned counsel lastly relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Haji Iqbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and

others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 946, wherein it has been held that

while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226

of the Constitution, the High Court must carefully scrutinize the

FIR in cases where allegations of mala fides and ulterior motive

are raised. The Court is duty-bound to examine not merely the

language of the FIR but also the attending circumstances to

ascertain whether the prosecution is manifestly frivolous or

vexatious.

13 In view of the aforesaid legal position, learned counsel submits

that the FIR, the charge-sheet, the order taking cognizance and

all consequential proceedings are an abuse of the process of law

and are liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent and

extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

14 Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the allegations

against the accused are serious in nature and disclose

commission of cognizable offences involving financial fraud and

forgery affecting a large number of LIC policyholders. It is

submitted that the complainant, Dharmendra Mohbia,

Development Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Mahasamund, lodged a written complaint on 29.12.2021 before

the Station House Officer, Mahasamund, alleging that the

accused, Umesh Kumar Nirmalkar, had embezzled premium

amounts collected from customers and had issued fake premium

receipts in his own name. During investigation, it was revealed

that a total amount of Rs. 7,43,975/- collected towards policy

premiums was not deposited with LIC and was misappropriated,

thereby causing financial loss to the policyholders and agents.

15 Learned State counsel submits that during the course of

investigation, as many as 49 receipts allegedly issued by the

accused to the premium holders were seized and verified from

LIC, Mahasamund. Statements of policyholders and concerned

agents were recorded. Bank account details of the accused were

obtained to trace the financial transactions. The handwriting and

signatures appearing on the impugned receipts were sent for

forensic examination by a handwriting expert, and the computer

system and other electronic devices allegedly used by the

accused were sent to the cyber forensic laboratory for analysis.

Thus, the investigation was conducted in a comprehensive and

scientific manner. It is further submitted that upon completion of

investigation, sufficient material was found establishing prima

facie involvement of the accused in the offences alleged, and

accordingly charge-sheet No. 132/22 dated 12.05.2022 was filed

before the competent Court after due verification by the District

Prosecution Officer. The accused was arrested on 17.02.2022 and

subsequently remanded to judicial custody.

16 Learned State counsel submits that after filing of the charge-

sheet, the case was fixed for appearance of the accused.

However, on 27.10.2022, in absence of the accused as well as his

counsel, arrest warrant was issued against him. Thereafter, from

27.10.2022 till 28.06.2025, the accused remained absent and did

not appear before the trial Court. Repeated arrest warrants have

been issued through the Superintendent of Police, but the

execution/non-execution reports have not yielded the presence of

the accused before the Court. It is contended that the conduct of

the accused clearly demonstrates that he is absconding and

deliberately avoiding the process of law. Despite adequate efforts

made by the prosecution and the police authorities, there is no

likelihood of securing his presence in the near future. In such

circumstances, the pendency of the case is attributable solely to

the conduct of the accused.

17 Learned State counsel submits that the materials collected during

investigation, including documentary evidence, seized receipts,

bank records, and statements of witnesses, clearly disclose

commission of offences under the relevant penal provisions. The

charge-sheet has been filed after due application of mind and

there is sufficient prima facie material to proceed with the trial.

The issues raised by the accused pertain to disputed questions of

fact, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings seeking

quashment and are matters to be tested during trial. It is therefore

prayed that no interference is called for at this stage and the

petition seeking quashment of proceedings deserves to be

dismissed.

18 We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable

length and have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival

submissions advanced. We have also perused the material

placed on record, including the FIR, the charge-sheet and the

documents relied upon by the prosecution.

19 At the outset, it must be reiterated that the power of this Court

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash criminal

proceedings is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary in

nature. Such power is to be exercised sparingly, with

circumspection, and only where the Court is satisfied that the

allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the

commission of any offence or that the proceedings are manifestly

attended with mala fide and amount to abuse of the process of

law. It is equally well settled that this Court, at this stage, cannot

appreciate evidence, adjudicate disputed questions of fact, or

conduct a mini-trial.

20 In the case at hand, the allegations levelled against the petitioner

are grave in nature, involving misappropriation of premium

amounts collected from policyholders and issuance of receipts

allegedly bearing forged seal and signatures. During investigation,

statements of policyholders were recorded, receipts were seized

and verified from LIC, bank account details were called for, and

disputed handwriting and electronic devices were sent for

examination. Upon completion of investigation, the competent

authority found sufficient prima facie material and filed the charge-

sheet. At this stage, this Court is only required to see whether

such material discloses the basic ingredients of the alleged

offences.

21 Upon perusal, it cannot be said that the prosecution case is so

absurd or inherently improbable that no offence is made out. The

defence put forth by the petitioner that he had limited access to

the computer system, that transactions were directly credited to

the complainant's bank account, that no forged seal was

recovered from his possession, and that he has been falsely

implicated due to personal animosity are all matters requiring

evidence and adjudication during trial. These are disputed

questions of fact which cannot be conclusively determined in

proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

22 More importantly, the conduct of the petitioner assumes significant

relevance. The record indicates that after filing of the charge-

sheet, the petitioner failed to appear before the trial Court. Non-

bailable warrants were issued to secure his presence. Despite

repeated issuance of warrants through the Superintendent of

Police, the petitioner did not appear before the Court and the

execution/non-execution reports reflect that his presence could

not be secured. It has also been brought on record that a farari

panchnama has been prepared against the petitioner, reflecting

that he is absconding and evading the process of law.

23 Thus, the petitioner is not only facing serious criminal allegations

but is also an absconder against whom coercive processes have

been initiated. A person who has deliberately avoided appearing

before the trial Court and against whom warrants and farari

proceedings have been drawn cannot, as a matter of course,

invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court seeking

equitable relief.

24 The discretionary jurisdiction of this Court is not meant to shield a

litigant who is in defiance of the judicial process. The pendency of

warrants and preparation of farari panchnama unmistakably

indicate that the petitioner has not submitted to the jurisdiction of

the trial Court. In such circumstances, interference at his instance

would not only be legally unwarranted but would also undermine

the sanctity of the judicial process.

25 Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, we are of the

considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish that

the impugned FIR, charge-sheet or consequential proceedings

suffer from any patent illegality or constitute abuse of the process

of law so as to warrant interference. On the contrary, the material

on record discloses prima facie commission of cognizable

offences, which must be examined and adjudicated in the course

of trial.

26 Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby

dismissed.

27 It is made clear that any observations made herein are only for

the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not

influence the trial Court while adjudicating the matter on its own

merits, strictly in accordance with law.

                      Sd/-                                        Sd/-
           (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)                        (Ramesh Sinha)
                   Judge                                     Chief Justice
Anu