[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Mayank Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 February, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:10165-DB
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
BABLU
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
BABLU RAJENDRA
RAJENDRA BHANARKAR
BHANARKAR Date:
2026.02.28
10:18:17
+0530
CRMP No. 613 of 2026
1 - Mayank Soni S/o Kishore Soni Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No. -
25, Jagjeevanram Ward, Dallirajhara, Tahsil- Doundi, District- Balod
(C.G.)
2 - Kishor Soni S/o Badrinarayan Aged About 50 Years (Not Mentioned
In The Order Sheet), R/o Ward No. - 25, Jagjeevanram Ward,
Dallirajhara, Tahsil- Doundi, District- Balod (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh By Police Station - Dallirajhara, District- Balod
(C.G.)
2 - Pankaj Soni S/o Late Shri Tarachand Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward
No. 10 Purana Bazar Rajhara Thana Rajhara District- Balod,
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Jitendra Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.Saurabh Sharma, Panel Lawyer
No.1-State
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 Mr.Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners as
well as Mr.Saurabh Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for
respondent No.1/State.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking
following relief(s):
"(A) It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and
pleased to quash the registration of F.I.R no.
103/2025 vide F.I.R. dated 16/04/2025 registered by
police station Rajhara district Balod chhattisgarh for
the offence under section 308(2) of BNS and 4 of
chhattisgarh debtors protection act 1937 against the
petitioners, Charge sheet no. 146/2025, vide
chargesheet dated 14/07/2025 for the offence under
section 308(2), 238,3(5) Of BNS and 4 of
chhattisgarh debtors protection act 1937 and order
of taking cognizance dated 11/08/2025 in charge
sheet no. 146/2025 for the offence under section
308(2), 238,3(5) Of BNS and 4 of chhattisgarh
debtors protection act 1937, & furuther criminal
proceeding in criminal case no. 1439 of 2025 in
state of chhattisgarh versus Mayank soni & 01 other
pending before the learned trial court pending before
the learned trial court against the present
petitioners, in the interest of justice.
(B) Any other relief/ order may also be granted that
may be deemed fit and just in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Police Station
Dallirajhara, District Balod, has registered Crime No. 103/2025
against the present petitioners for the alleged offences. The
incident is stated to have occurred during the period from
22.02.2024 to 19.02.2025, and the FIR was registered on
16.04.2025. According to the prosecution, the complainant,
Pankaj Soni, submitted a written complaint on 07.03.2024, upon
which an inquiry was conducted and, thereafter, the FIR was
registered on 16.04.2025. During the course of investigation, it
was found that the complainant and petitioner No. 1 were
engaged in the business of sale and purchase of gold and silver. It
was further revealed that both were involved in online betting
through a mobile application.
4. The complainant allegedly borrowed a total amount of Rs.
31,00,000/- from petitioner No. 1 on several occasions after
incurring losses in betting. It is alleged that the complainant repaid
a total amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- (including interest) through bank
transfers and also mortgaged jewellery worth Rs. 37,00,000/- to
applicant No. 1. Despite this, the present petitioners allegedly
pressured the complainant to pay the remaining amount of Rs.
14,00,000/- and, while abusing him, threatened to disclose his
online betting activities to his family members.
5. On the basis of the said investigation, offences under Section
308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 4 of the
Chhattisgarh Debtors Protection Act, 1937, were registered
against the present petitioners vide FIR dated 16.04.2025 at
Police Station Dallirajhara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh.
6. Thereafter, upon completion of investigation, the police filed a
charge sheet dated 14.07.2025 bearing Charge Sheet No.
146/2025 before the learned Trial Court for the offences under
Sections 308(2), 238, and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 4 of the
Chhattisgarh Debtors Protection Act, 1937. Subsequently, the
learned Trial Court took cognizance of the aforesaid offences vide
order dated 11.08.2025 in Criminal Case No. 1439/2025 titled
State of Chhattisgarh v. Mayank Soni & Another. The matter is
presently fixed for framing of charges before the Trial Court.
Hence, the present petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, from a bare
perusal of the record, the essential ingredients of the alleged
offences are not made out against the present petitioners. It is
contended that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely
implicated in the present case. The dispute, if any, is purely
personal in nature. The petitioners and the complainant were well
acquainted with each other, as both were engaged in the same
business. It is further submitted that both parties were running
jewellery shops at Dallirajhara and had business dealings with
each other. Learned counsel submits that prior to the registration
of the FIR dated 16.04.2025, petitioner No. 1 had already lodged
a written complaint on 16.05.2025 against the complainant's
brother, Sourabh Soni, alleging that the complainant and his
brother had committed fraud upon petitioner No. 1 in order to
avoid repayment of Rs. 14,00,000/-.
8. It is also submitted that petitioner No. 1 had earlier submitted a
written complaint dated 20.03.2025 to the Station House Officer,
Police Station Dallirajhara, and to the Superintendent of Police,
Balod. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant,
Pankaj Soni, executed a written undertaking on a stamp paper of
Rs. 100/-, agreeing to repay an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- to
petitioner No. 1 within a period of two months. Copies of the
relevant complaints and documents submitted by petitioner No. 1
have been annexed as Annexure P/2. Learned counsel submits
that a perusal of the entire charge-sheet filed by the police
authorities would reveal that the dispute between the parties is
essentially a monetary dispute arising out of business
transactions, which has been given a criminal colour. It is further
submitted that the present petitioners were granted anticipatory
bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 659/2025 (Mayank Soni &
Another v. State of Chhattisgarh & Another) vide order dated
07/05/2025. A copy of the said order has been annexed as
Annexure P/3.
9. Lastly, it is submitted that no specific role has been attributed to
petitioner No. 2, who is the father of petitioner No. 1. All alleged
transactions were carried out solely by petitioner No. 1. Petitioner
No. 2 has been falsely implicated only as a counterblast to the
business rivalry and personal dispute between petitioner No. 1
and the complainant. It is, therefore, prayed that this Court may
be pleased to quash FIR No. 103/2025 dated 16.04.2025
registered at Police Station Dallirajhara, District Balod,
Chhattisgarh, for the offences under Section 308(2) of the BNS
and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Debtors Protection Act, 1937;
further, quash Charge Sheet No. 146/2025 dated 14.07.2025 filed
for the offences under Sections 308(2), 238 and 3(5) of the BNS
and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Debtors Protection Act, 1937,
as well as the order of cognizance dated 11.08.2025 passed
therein and consequently, quash all further proceedings in
Criminal Case No. 1439/2025 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Mayank
Soni & Another) pending before the learned Trial Court, in the
interest of justice.
10. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the
State/respondent No.1 vehemently opposes the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that
the FIR and the charge sheet disclose the commission of
cognizable offences and that a prima facie case is clearly made
out against the present petitioners. Learned Panel Lawyer
submits that, at this stage, while exercising inherent jurisdiction,
this Court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of
the evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact. The
allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during
investigation specifically attribute overt acts to the petitioners,
which constitute offences punishable under the relevant
provisions of the BNS and the Chhattisgarh Debtors Protection
Act, 1937. It is further submitted that the contention of the
petitioners that the dispute is purely civil in nature is
misconceived. The investigation has revealed material indicating
intimidation, unlawful demand, and other acts which attract
criminal liability. Merely because the parties had business
dealings does not absolve the petitioners of criminal responsibility
when the allegations disclose ingredients of the offences alleged.
11. Learned Panel Lawyer further submits that the charge sheet has
already been filed after due investigation and the learned Trial
Court has taken cognizance upon being satisfied that sufficient
material exists to proceed against the accused persons. The
matter is presently at the stage of framing of charges, and the
petitioners have an adequate remedy before the Trial Court to
raise all permissible objections in accordance with law. With
regard to petitioner No. 2, it is submitted that the role of each
accused has been examined during investigation and sufficient
material has been collected to implicate him. The plea of false
implication is a matter of defence, which cannot be adjudicated in
proceedings seeking quashment of the FIR and charge sheet. It is
thus submitted that the present petition is devoid of merit and
amounts to an attempt to stall the criminal proceedings at a
premature stage. Therefore, the State prays that the petition
seeking quashment of the FIR, charge sheet, and consequential
proceedings be dismissed in the interest of justice.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Panel Lawyer appearing for the State at considerable length. We
have also perused the FIR, the charge sheet, the order taking
cognizance, and the documents annexed with the petition.
13. The principal submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners is
that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature,
arising out of monetary transactions connected with their jewellery
business, and that the criminal proceedings have been initiated
with mala fide intention. It is further contended that the essential
ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out and that
petitioner No. 2 has been falsely implicated without any specific
role.
14. The scope of interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction for quashing of an FIR or charge sheet is well settled.
At this stage, the Court is not required to embark upon a
meticulous appreciation of evidence or adjudicate disputed
questions of fact. The test to be applied is whether, on a plain
reading of the FIR and the material collected during investigation,
a prima facie case is made out.
15. Upon a careful perusal of the FIR and the charge sheet, we find
that the allegations are not confined merely to a simple monetary
dispute. The prosecution case reflects allegations of continued
unlawful demand and intimidation. Such allegations, taken at their
face value, prima facie disclose the ingredients of the offences
alleged. Whether the same ultimately result in conviction is a
matter to be determined during trial upon appreciation of
evidence.
16. The defence sought to be projected by the petitioners, including
prior complaints lodged by petitioner No. 1 and the alleged
undertaking executed by the complainant, involves disputed
questions of fact. These aspects cannot be conclusively
adjudicated in proceedings seeking quashment. The inherent
jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked to conduct a mini-trial
or to evaluate the sufficiency of evidence.
17. Insofar as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, though it is argued that
no specific role has been attributed to him, the charge sheet
indicates that the investigating agency has collected material
implicating him. The plea of false implication is essentially a
matter of defence, which can be effectively raised before the Trial
Court at the appropriate stage.
18. It is also relevant to note that the investigation has been
completed, the charge sheet has been filed, and the learned Trial
Court has taken cognizance of the offences. The case is presently
at the stage of framing of charges. The petitioners have adequate
statutory remedies available before the Trial Court to raise all
permissible objections in accordance with law.
19. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the
allegations in the FIR and the material collected during
investigation disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners.
The grounds urged by the petitioners do not fall within the limited
parameters warranting interference for quashment at this stage.
20. Consequently, we find no merit in the present petition. The same
is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Bablu
