[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Swati Gopal @ Singhal vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors on 10 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:11365-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 653 of 2026
Swati Gopal @ Singhal W/o Arpit Singhal Aged About 34 Years R/o R-
3/77 Sector -3, Raj Nagar Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh - 201002
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh And Ors Through- Station House Officer,
Police Station, Sarkanda, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh,
2. Mr. Shilpi Shrivastava D/o Late Sh. K.K. Srivastava R/o Om Niwas
Behind Manorma Dairy Near Jora Talab Gorapara Sarkanda
District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Compalinant)
...Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Shivesh Kaushik, Advocate through
VC along with Mr. Sanjay Kumar Soni,
Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government
Digitally
Advocate.
signed by
BRIJMOHAN
BRIJMOHAN MORLE
MORLE Date:
2026.03.10
18:32:59
+0530
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
10.03.2026
1. Heard Mr. Shivesh Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner
through video conferencing along with Mr. Sanjay Kumar Soni, learned
counsel. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate,
appearing for the State/respondent No. 1.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayers:
"(a) Quash FIR No. 561 of 2025 dated 18.04.2025
registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh, under Sections 420, 406, 384, 120-B
and 34 of the IPC, and all consequential proceedings,
if any, therefrom, insofar as they relate to the petitioner;
(b) Stay further investigation and all coercive steps
against the petitioner during the pendency of the
present petition; and
(c) Pass any other order(s) deemed fit in the interest of
justice."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant
(respondent No. 2) was married to the petitioner's relative (first cousin,
the complainant's former husband). It is submitted that multiple
litigations had arisen between the complainant and her husband and his
family members, and several of those proceedings were being heard by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court at Delhi. This background, according to the
petitioner, has already been noticed by this Hon'ble Court while granting
anticipatory bail to the petitioner vide order dated 16.10.2025. Learned
counsel further submits that the prosecution story in the impugned FIR
broadly alleges that the complainant and/or her mother advanced
substantial sums of money to the petitioner and co-accused Amit
Dewan and that, upon disputes arising between the parties, cheques
were issued and later dishonoured, following which allegations of
coercion, extortion and related offences were made, culminating in
registration of the present FIR.
4. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the narrative
set out in the FIR is self-contradictory, inherently improbable and
motivated by matrimonial hostility. According to the petitioner, the
allegations seek to give a criminal colour to what is essentially a
monetary dispute arising out of alleged financial transactions. Learned
counsel submits that prior to registration of the impugned FIR, the
complainant had consciously elected to pursue civil and statutory
remedies in relation to the same alleged transaction by issuing legal
notices dated 26.10.2024 and 28.01.2025 alleging cheque dishonour
and seeking recovery of the amount. It is further submitted that another
legal notice dated 30.04.2025 was issued demanding repayment of the
alleged amount, thereby demonstrating that the dispute was treated by
the complainant herself as a civil monetary dispute.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a central
assertion in the FIR is that the complainant and/or her mother were
capable of advancing a sum of about Rs. 1 crore to the petitioner. This
assertion, according to the petitioner, is inherently doubtful in view of the
complainant's earlier judicial conduct. It is contended that in earlier
proceedings the complainant had claimed financial incapacity and had
been provided legal aid by the Chhattisgarh High Court and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. It is also submitted that an earlier FIR lodged by the
complainant in the year 2017 records that she and her mother were
unable to arrange even a relatively small amount, which contradicts the
allegation that they were capable of advancing a loan of Rs. 1 crore.
6. It is further argued that the prosecution story is inherently
improbable because, at the relevant time, the complainant's matrimonial
relationship had already broken down and several litigations were
pending between her and her husband and his family members before
various courts, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In such
circumstances, according to the petitioner, it is highly unlikely that the
complainant and her mother would voluntarily advance a substantial
amount to persons closely connected with the very matrimonial family
against whom she was simultaneously litigating.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant
had voluntarily returned the cheques on 03.03.2025 and accepted a
settlement amount of Rs. 5.34 crores on 04.03.2025 during the hearing
of Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 725/2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, and thereafter lodged the present FIR on 18.04.2025. According
to the petitioner, this sequence demonstrates mala fide intent and abuse
of criminal process.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the
petition and submits that the FIR discloses the commission of
cognizable offences under Sections 420, 406, 384 and 120-B of the
IPC. It is submitted that the allegations disclose that the petitioner and
co-accused persons had obtained a substantial amount of money from
the complainant and her mother on the pretext of repayment within a
stipulated time, executed an MOU acknowledging the liability, and
thereafter issued several cheques which were dishonoured for various
reasons including closure of bank account, insufficient funds, stop-
payment instructions and signature mismatch. According to the State,
these allegations prima facie disclose dishonest intention and criminal
breach of trust. It is further submitted that the pleas raised by the
petitioner involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be examined
in proceedings seeking quashing of the FIR and must be investigated in
accordance with law.
9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
material available on record, including the impugned FIR.
10. A perusal of the FIR reveals that the complainant, Shilpi
Srivastava, daughter of Late Shri K.K. Srivastava, aged about 37 years
and resident of Om Niwas near Manorama Dairy, Jorapara, Sarkanda,
District Bilaspur (C.G.), states that her marriage was solemnized in the
year 2012 with Varun Gopal, son of Shri Manmohan Gopal, resident of
Delhi, which has subsequently been dissolved by divorce. The
complainant states that several litigations arising out of her matrimonial
dispute were pending between her and her husband and his family
members before various courts, including proceedings before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court at Delhi. According to the FIR, Amit Dewan and
Swati Gopal, who are distant relatives of her former husband, were on
cordial terms with the complainant and had assisted her in relation to
the pending litigations. It is alleged that during the period between 2018
and 2021, the said persons gained the confidence of the complainant
and her mother, Smt. Anjula Srivastava, and borrowed a sum of Rs. 1
crore in installments for their personal needs, out of which Rs. 10 lakhs
was returned through a demand draft. The FIR further states that on
23.11.2021 an MOU was executed before a Public Notary at Patiala
House Court, Delhi, wherein the accused acknowledged borrowing Rs.1
crore and agreed to repay the balance amount of Rs. 90 lakhs within 4-
5 months. However, the complainant alleges that the amount was not
repaid and that the accused repeatedly issued cheques in their own
names and in the names of their relatives as security, which were
subsequently dishonoured for various reasons. It is further alleged that
cheques amounting to Rs. 88 lakhs issued in June-July 2024 were
dishonoured and that the accused later insisted that the original
cheques be returned as a condition for giving consent to the sale of a
property at Hari Nagar, Delhi during settlement proceedings before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. According to the complainant, she returned the
cheques on 03.03.2025 and thereafter received the settlement amount
of Rs. 5.34 crores during the hearing of Contempt Petition (Civil) No.
725/2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 04.03.2025, but the
accused persons failed to repay the remaining amount of ₹88 lakhs
thereafter. On these allegations, offences under Sections 420, 406, 384
and 120-B of the IPC have been alleged.
11. It is well settled that the power of the High Court to quash criminal
proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) is extraordinary in
nature and must be exercised sparingly and with great caution. The
Court must examine whether the allegations made in the FIR, if taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety, disclose the commission
of a cognizable offence.
12. The principles governing exercise of such jurisdiction have been
authoritatively laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604; Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S.
Gill, (1995) 6 SCC 194; Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3
SCC 259; Medchl Chemicals & Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. Biological E.
Ltd., (2000) 3 SCC 269; State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo,
(2005) 13 SCC 540; and Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, which consistently hold that
the Court should refrain from entering into disputed questions of fact at
the stage of quashing.
13. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case,
this Court finds that the allegations contained in the FIR, when taken at
their face value, disclose that the accused persons had obtained a
substantial amount of money from the complainant and her mother,
acknowledged such liability through an MOU, and thereafter issued
multiple cheques which were dishonoured for various reasons. Whether
these allegations are ultimately proved or not is a matter that can only
be determined after investigation and, if necessary, during trial.
14. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner regarding
the financial capacity of the complainant, the surrounding matrimonial
disputes and the nature of the transactions involve disputed questions
of fact which cannot be conclusively examined in proceedings seeking
quashing of the FIR.
15. It is also well settled that the mere existence of a civil dispute or
availability of civil remedies does not by itself bar criminal prosecution
where the factual allegations disclose ingredients of criminal offences.
16. In the considered opinion of this Court, the allegations contained
in the FIR disclose the commission of cognizable offences warranting
investigation. No case is therefore made out for exercise of inherent
jurisdiction to quash the FIR.
17. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. However, it is clarified
that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding
the present petition and shall not prejudice the rights of the parties
during the course of investigation or trial. The petitioner shall be at
liberty to avail such remedies as may be available to him in accordance
with law.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan
