[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Bhola Prasad Kurrey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:13615-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 823 of 2026
Bhola Prasad Kurrey S/o Late Sonsai Kurrey Aged About 42 Years R/o
Kedarpur, Premnagar, P.S. Surajpur, Dist. Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
Presently Residing At Kedarpur, Ambikapur, P.S. Ambikapur, Dist.
Sarguja, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S.- Gandhi
Nagar, Ambikapur, Dist. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh
2. Sanjit Agrawal S/o Kanhaiyalal Agrawal Aged About 38 Years R/o
Ward No. 3, Mishra Gali, Behind Global School, Surajpur, Dist.
Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
3. Sandeep Agrawal S/o Kanhaiyalal Agrawal Aged About 43 Years
R/o Ward No. 3, Mishra Gali, Behind Global School, Surajpur,
Dist. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
4. Kanhaiyalal Agrawal S/o Unknown Aged About 72 Years R/o Ward
No. 3, Mishra Gali, Behind Global School, Surajpur, Dist. Surajpur,
Chhattisgarh
Digitally
signed by
BRIJMOHAN
BRIJMOHAN MORLE
MORLE Date:
2026.03.23
17:40:32
+0530
2
5. Divya Gupta D/o Ashok Gupta Aged About 26 Years R/o Champa,
Dist.- Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.
6. Yogesh Gupta S/o Ashok Gupta Aged About 40 Years R/o
Champa, Dist.- Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.
7. Dev Kumar Kurrey S/o Ali Sai Kurrey Aged About 25 Years R/o
Kedarpur, Nayakpara, P.S. Premnagar, Surajpur, Dist. Surajpur
Chhattisgarh
...Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha,
Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. 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
23.03.2026
1. Heard Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the
petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate,
appearing for the State/respondent No. 1.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayers:
"(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
call for the entire records pertaining to the present
case from the respondent Police Station.
(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to
quash the impugned FIR bearing No. 715 of 2024 so
far as it relates to the petitioner registered at
respondent Police Station for alleged offences
punishable under Sections 420, 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'),
Section 111 and 317(4) of Bhartiya Nyay Sahinta,
2023, Section 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money
Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section
10 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest
Act, 2005.
(iii) That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit in the interest of justice, may kindly be
awarded."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a
bona fide, law-abiding and peace-loving citizen of India, entitled to the
protection of his fundamental, constitutional and legal rights as
guaranteed under the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the
petitioner initially lodged an FIR against one Sanjit Agrawal and other
co-accused persons alleging that they, by way of social media प्रचार and
wide publicity, induced members of the public to invest money in their
institution, namely "Subh Nivesh Stock Trading Company" situated at
M.G. Road, Ambikapur, on the assurance of abnormally high returns
within a short period. He further submits that the petitioner, being
influenced by such representations, enrolled himself in a 40-day share
trading course conducted by the said accused. Upon completion of the
course, he was persuaded to invest substantial amounts with the
assurance of returns up to ten times the invested sum. Acting upon
such inducement, the petitioner along with his relatives invested an
amount of Rs. 75,00,000/-. It is contended that only a nominal portion of
the promised returns, approximately 10%, was paid, and thereafter the
accused persons absconded, their office was found locked and contact
numbers switched off. It is also submitted that the post-dated cheque
issued in favour of the petitioner was dishonoured due to insufficient
funds.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that despite
being the complainant and victim, the petitioner has been erroneously
arrayed as a co-accused during the course of investigation. It is
submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 14.09.2025 and
subsequently enlarged on bail on 18.11.2025. It is also contended that
the petitioner had earlier approached the Superintendent of Police for
registration of FIR and has independently initiated proceedings under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the main
accused. He would submit that there is no material on record to prima
facie establish the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences
and that the essential ingredients of the offences under the relevant
penal provisions are not made out against him. It is argued that
continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would
amount to abuse of the process of law.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the
petition and submits that the investigation is still at a crucial stage and
has not yet culminated in submission of the final police report. It is
submitted that the role of the petitioner is under active investigation and
cannot be conclusively determined at this premature stage. It is further
contended that merely because the petitioner was the initial informant
does not ipso facto preclude his involvement in the alleged offence, if
material collected during investigation indicates otherwise. He further
submits that similarly placed co-accused persons i.e. respondents No. 3
and 4 had earlier approached this Court by filing CRMP No. 588 of 2025
seeking quashing of the same FIR, which came to be dismissed on
17.02.2025, and therefore, the present petition deserves to be
considered with circumspection. He further submitted that interference
under Section 528 of the BNSS at the stage of ongoing investigation is
warranted only in exceptional circumstances, which are not made out in
the present case.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their
rival submissions and perused the material available on record with due
care.
7. At this stage, it is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction for
quashing of an FIR is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. When
the investigation is still in progress, the Court ordinarily ought not to
interfere unless the allegations on the face of the record do not disclose
any offence or the proceedings are manifestly mala fide.
8. In the present case, as the investigation is still pending and the
police report has not yet been filed, this Court is not inclined to examine
the merits of the allegations in detail or to record any finding which may
prejudice either party.
9. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the concerned Investigating
Officer is directed to expedite the investigation and submit the police
report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 193(3) of the
BNSS) before the competent Court, strictly in accordance with law,
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this order.
10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the case. The petitioner shall be at liberty to avail
appropriate remedies, as available under law, at the appropriate stage.
11. It is further observed that in the event the petitioner is aggrieved
by the police report so filed, he shall be at liberty to challenge the same
before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present
petition stands disposed off.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan
