[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Jai Kumar Dewangan (In Person) vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:13614-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 816 of 2026
1. Jai Kumar Dewangan (In Person) S/o Homji Lal Dewangan, Aged
About 36 Years R/o Village Sakarra, Tahsil Adbhar, P.S.
Malkharouda, District Sakti Chhattisgarh
2. Smt Dimple Dewangan W/o Jai Kumar Dewangan Aged About 33
Years Son Of Homju Lal Dewangan, R/o Village Sakarra, Tahsil
Adbhar, P.S. Malkharouda District Sakti Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Home,
Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Superintendent of Police, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.)
3. Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, District
Mungeli Chhattisgarh
4. Aaryan Toppo S/o Prabodh Toppo Aged About 19 Years R/o Karhi
Colony In Fromnt Of Coolectorate District Mungeli Now, C/o
Father Prabodh Toppo, Judge Family Court Address District And
Sessions Court South Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, District
Raigarh (C.G.)
...Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners : Mr. Jai Kumar Dewangan, in person.
Digitally
signed by
BRIJMOHAN
For Respondent/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government
BRIJMOHAN MORLE
MORLE Date:
2026.03.23
Advocate.
17:40:32
+0530
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. Jai Kumar Dewang, petitioner in person. Also heard Mr.
Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the
State/respondents No. 1 to 3.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the
following prayers:
"1. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow
the instant petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023
filed by the petitioner, in the interest of justice.
2. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash
the FIR bearing No. 322 of 2022 registered on dated
28.05.2022 at Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli
Chhattisgarh filed under Section 420, 34 of IPC in the
interest of justice.
3. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to acquit
the petitioners from alleged offence under Section
420, 34 of IPC on the basis of delayed proceeding in
the light to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the interest of justice.
4. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly grant any other
reliefs in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble
Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances
of the case, in the interest of justice."
3. Petitioner No. 1 appears in person and seeks quashing of FIR
No.322 of 2022 registered for the alleged offence under Section 420/34
of the IPC, along with the entire investigation proceedings, on the
ground that the same are illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to settled
principles of law. He submits that as per the prosecution case, the minor
complainant alleged that petitioner No. 1, namely Jai Kumar Dewangan,
along with his cousin Vishnu Dewangan, had acquaintance with the
complainant's family and was entrusted with the care of the
complainant's mother during her treatment at CMC Vellore. It is further
alleged that petitioner No. 1 had access to an ATM card through which
an amount of Rs. 6,96,936/- was withdrawn illegally by an unknown
person, leading to registration of the impugned FIR.
4. The petitioner further submits that despite lapse of more than
three years and nine months from the date of registration of the FIR, the
investigating agency has neither completed the investigation nor filed
the charge-sheet, which is in violation of statutory provisions and has
caused serious prejudice to the petitioners. It is also contended that the
FIR itself has been lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay, as
the alleged transactions took place between 16.12.2016 and
19.08.2020, whereas the FIR was registered on 28.05.2022, thereby
casting serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations.
5. It is further submitted that at the time of the alleged incidents, the
complainant was a minor and had no knowledge of the financial
transactions. The complaint is alleged to have been filed subsequently
under influence, and therefore lacks credibility. It is contended that all
financial transactions were carried out with the full knowledge and
consent of the complainant's parents for medical, domestic, and other
legitimate purposes.
6. The petitioner submits that he had assisted the complainant's
family, including accompanying the complainant's mother for medical
treatment and managing financial and domestic affairs as per
instructions. It is argued that the relationship between the parties was
based on trust and familiarity, and therefore, no dishonest intention or
ingredient of cheating is made out. It is further contended that the
allegations are vague and do not disclose specific instances of
misappropriation. It is also submitted that the petitioner had no
knowledge of the FIR until much later when inquiries were initiated
regarding his properties. According to the petitioner, the present dispute
is civil in nature arising out of consensual financial transactions, which
has been given a criminal colour due to ulterior motives.
7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and
submits that the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of
cognizable offences, and the matter is presently under investigation. It
is contended that the delay in lodging the FIR and other factual aspects
are matters of evidence which cannot be examined at this stage. It is
further submitted that the investigation is in progress and requires
collection of material evidence, including financial transactions, and
therefore, interference at this stage would not be appropriate.
8. We have heard the petitioner appearing in person as well as
learned counsel for the State, considered their rival submissions, and
perused the material available on record with due care.
9. It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction for quashing of an
FIR is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in cases
where the allegations on the face of the record do not disclose any
offence or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide
or abuse of process of law.
10. In the present case, the investigation is admittedly still pending
and the police report has not yet been filed. At this stage, this Court is
not inclined to examine the disputed questions of fact or to record
findings on the merits of the allegations, as the same may prejudice the
case of either party. However, considering the fact that the FIR was
registered in the year 2022 and the investigation has not been
completed till date, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the
investigating agency to expedite the investigation.
11. Accordingly, the concerned Investigating Officer is directed to
complete the investigation and submit the police report under Section
173(2) of the Cr.P.C. (now corresponding to Section 193(3) of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) before the competent
Court, strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
12. It is further observed that in the event the petitioner is aggrieved
by the police report so filed, he shall be at liberty to avail appropriate
remedies as available under law before the competent forum.
13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present
petition stands disposed off.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan
