[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Satish Kumar Sonwani vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally signed
2026:CGHC:13619-DB
by ALOK
ALOK SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.03.25
16:34:02 +0530 NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 826 of 2026
1 - Satish Kumar Sonwani S/o Ramlal Sonwani Aged About 42 Years
R/o Gali No. 2, Vv Vihar, Mowa Raipur, Shankar Nagar, Raipur
Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh
2 - Satendra Patanwar S/o Rameshwar Prasad Aged About 29 Years
R/o Village Basanpara, District - Koriya Chhattisgarh (Complainant)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kashish Saluja, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
23/03/2026
1. Heard Mr. Kashish Saluja, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the
Respondent/State.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayer:
"1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to quash the FIR dated 20.09.2024
registered at Police Station Janjgir, District
Janjgir, quash the entire charge sheet dated
20.07.2025, bearing No. 512/2025, filed
against the petitioner in crime No.741/2024
for the offence punishable U/s 420, 34 of the
IPC and 108, 111 (2)(a) of the BNS before the
learned Sessions Court, Janjgir, District
Janjgir Champa (C.G.). (ANNEXURE- P/1).
2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to quash the order of taking
cognizance dated 06.10.2025 (ANNEXURE
P/2), order of framing charges dated
26.12.2025 (ANNEXURE P/3), Sesscons
Criminal Case No. 99/2025, filed against the
petitioner in crime No. 741/2024 for the
offence punishable U/s 420, 34 of the IPC and
108, 111(2)(a) of the BNS before the learned
Sessions Court, Janjgir, District - Janjgir
Champa (C.G.).
3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to quash all proceedings arising out
of the said FIR pending before the learned
Sessions Court, sessions Janjgir, District
Janjgir Champa (C.G.), Criminal Case No.
99/2025.
4. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court
deems fit under the facts and circumstances
of the case may kindly be granted to the
petitioners.."
3. Brief facts of the case are that the FIR was lodged by the
complainant, uncle of the deceased, alleging that the deceased had
advanced a substantial sum of money to the petitioner and co-accused,
which was not returned, and that due to non-payment and alleged
threats, the deceased consumed poison and subsequently died.
Investigation revealed financial transactions between the parties,
including loan agreements and cheques recovered from the deceased's
premises; however, there is no direct or indirect evidence to show that
the petitioner instigated or harassed the deceased. The petitioner
contends that the matter is purely civil in nature, arising from bona fide
business dealings, denies any criminal intent, and submits that the
essential ingredients of offences under Sections 108 and 111(2)(a) of
BNS are not made out, while the prosecution relies on prima facie
material to proceed with the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned
FIR, charge-sheet, and consequential proceedings are liable to be
quashed as the same do not disclose the essential ingredients of the
alleged offences. The entire prosecution case, even if taken at its face
value, merely indicates a financial transaction between the petitioner
and the deceased, arising out of a loan advanced for business
purposes, which by itself cannot give rise to criminal liability. There is no
material on record to establish any act of instigation, provocation, or
intentional aid on the part of the petitioner so as to constitute an offence
of abetment under the relevant provisions of law. The allegations
regarding threats are vague, omnibus, and unsupported by any specific
details or evidence. Furthermore, the learned trial court has already
dropped the offence under Section 420 IPC, thereby negating any
element of dishonest intention at inception. It is well settled that mere
non-repayment of a loan or financial stress cannot be construed as
abetment of suicide in the absence of a direct and proximate act
attributable to the accused. Hence, continuation of the present criminal
proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law, and
therefore, the same deserve to be quashed in the interest of justice.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent/State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel
for the petitioner and would submit that present petition is devoid of
merit and is liable to be dismissed, as the FIR, charge-sheet, and
material collected during the course of investigation prima facie disclose
the commission of cognizable offences. The allegations clearly indicate
that the petitioner, along with co-accused persons, had taken a
substantial amount of money from the deceased and failed to return the
same, and further subjected him to threats and harassment, which
ultimately drove the deceased to commit suicide. The statements of
witnesses, recovery of documents including cheques and loan
agreements, and the circumstances surrounding the incident collectively
establish a strong prima facie case against the petitioner. At this stage,
the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of
evidence, and if the material on record discloses a triable case, the
proceedings ought not to be quashed. The petitioner's defence that the
dispute is purely civil in nature is a matter of trial and cannot be
adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita. Hence, in view of the gravity of allegations and the
material available on record, the present petition deserves to be
dismissed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material annexed with the petition.
7. On careful consideration of the submissions and perusal of the
record, it is observed that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that
the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse
of the process of law. The FIR, charge-sheet, and material collected
during investigation prima facie disclose a cognizable offence involving
financial transactions and circumstances leading to the death of the
deceased. The contention of the petitioner that the matter is purely civil
in nature and that there was no instigation or abetment requires detailed
appreciation of evidence, which cannot be undertaken at this stage. The
material on record indicates sufficient grounds for the trial court to
proceed with the case.
8. Further, it is also noted that the trial Court is competent to
examine the veracity of the allegations and to decide on the defence
raised by the petitioner. At this stage, the Court cannot substitute its
opinion for the detailed appraisal of evidence that would occur during
trial. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case, we are not inclined to interfere in the petition, as the order passed
by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
9. In the matter of Manjit Singh Virdi vs. Hussain Mohammad
Shattaf 2023 (7) SCC 633, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para
12 of its judgement that:-
12. The law on the point has been summarised in a
recent judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan v.
Ashok Kumar Kashyap³ Relevant paras are extracted
below: (SCC pp. 197-98, para 11)
"11....11.1. In P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, this
Court had an occasion to consider Section 227 CrPC.
What is required to be considered at the time of framing
of the charge and/or considering the discharge
application has been considered elaborately in the said
decision. It is observed and held that at the stage of
Section 227, the Judge has merely to f sift the evidence
in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused. It is
observed that in other words, the sufficiency of grounds
would take within its fold the nature of the evidence
recorded by the police or the documents produced
before the court which ex facie disclose that there are
suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to
frame a charge against him. It is further observed that if
g the Judge comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient
ground to proceed. he will frame a charge under Section
228 CrPC, if not, he will discharge the accused. It is
further observed that while exercising its judicial mind to
the facts of the case in order to determine whether a
case for trial has been made out by the prosecution, it is
not necessary for the court to enter s the pros and cons
of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of
evidence and probabilities which is really the function of
the court, after the trial starts.
11.2 to the recent decision of this Court in State of
Karnataka v. MR. Memah, one of us (D. Y. Chandrachud,
J) speaking for the Bench has observed and held in para
25 as under: (SCC p. 526)
'25. The High Court ought to have been cognizant
of the fact that the trial court was dealing with an
application for discharge under the provisions of Section
219 CPC. The parameters which govern the exercise of
this jurisdiction have found expression in several
decisions of this Court. It is a settled principle of law that
at the stage of considering an application for discharge
the court must proceed on the assumption that the
material which has been brought on the record by the
prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to
determine whether the facts emerging from the material,
taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the
ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. In State
of N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, adverting to the earlier
decisions on the subject, this Court held: (N. Suresh
Rajan case, SCC 721-22, para 20)
"29....... At this stage, probative value of the
materials has to be gone into and the court is not
expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the
materials would not warrant a conviction In our opinion,
what needs to be considered is whether there is a
ground for presuming that the offence has been
committed and not whether a ground for convicting the
accused has been made out To put it differently, if the
court thinks that the accused might have the offence on t
committed the the basis of the materials on record on its
probative value, it can frame the charge, though for
conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that
the accused has committed the offence. The law does
not permit a mini trial at this stage."
10. In the present case, there is an allegation against the petitioner
that he borrowed a huge amount of about Rs. 1 crore 60 lakhs from the
deceased through cash as well as bank transactions. When the
deceased asked for a refund of his amount, he threatened him that he
was required to give some more money. When the deceased
approached the petitioner, the petitioner could not be found at his
house, and while returning from his house, he was again threatened by
mobile phone. Now, expecting that he would get his money back from
the petitioner, he again gave him Rs. 3-4 lakhs, taking it from his friend.
Other persons had also borrowed huge amounts from the deceased,
and ultimately, she felt cheated by the accused persons. From the
house of the deceased, various bank cheques of the petitioner's bank
account, certain agreements, and screenshots of online money
transfers, etc., were seized. Due to the extreme mental pressure arising
from the money transactions between the deceased and the petitioner,
the deceased committed suicide. There is evidence of CDR and
statements of witnesses, which prima facie implicate the petitioner in
the offence in question.
11. Accordingly, the present petition lacks merit, liable to be and
hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Alok
