Disposed¶35

Naveen Bajaj v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Apr 2025CRMP/1146/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR — Crime No. 595/2024, PS Civil Line, Bilaspur — IPC Sections 420/467/468/471/34 — family business dispute, forged signatures, cash-credit limit enhancement, Jockey agency collections — FIR not quashed; investigation to conclude in 06 weeks; police report under Section 193(3) BNSS — petition disposed off — CGHC DB, Ramesh Sinha CJ & Arvind Kumar Verma J, 02.04.2025, CRMP No. 1146 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

FIR not quashed; Investigating Officer directed to conclude the investigation within 06 weeks and submit a Police Report under Section 193(3) of the BNSS before the Competent Court in accordance with law; petition disposed off. ¶35

Naveen Bajaj Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR bearing Crime No. 595/2024 registered at Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur (C.G.) against the petitioners for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 IPC ought to be quashed.

¶26

Court's answer

The Court did not quash the FIR. Considering the submissions and the fact that although the FIR was registered on 04.07.2024 the investigation was still pending, the Court directed the Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation within a period of 06 weeks and submit a Police Report under Section 193(3) of the BNSS before the Competent Court in accordance with law.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

In view of the above direction, the present petition stands disposed off.

¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (DB: Ramesh Sinha, CJ and Arvind Kumar Verma, J) in CRMP No. 1146 of 2025, decided 02.04.2025: Petition by Naveen Bajaj and Ramesh Kumar Bajaj seeking quashing of FIR Crime No. 595/2024, Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur, registered on 04.07.2024 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 IPC on the written complaint of respondent Parasram Bajaj, alleging forgery of signatures, enhancement of cash-credit limits (Rs. 65 lakh to Rs. One Crore in Maharashtra Bank; Rs. 40 lakh to Rs. 70 lakh in Indian Overseas Bank), mortgage of the complainant's shop and retention of Jockey Innerwear agency collections in a family business dispute. The Court did not quash the FIR; noting the investigation was still pending with information awaited from the Bank, it directed the Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation within 06 weeks and submit a Police Report under Section 193(3) of the BNSS before the Competent Court, and disposed of the petition.

2025:CGHC:15385-DB

MANPREET KAUR

Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.04.04 15:26:28 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

NAFR

¶7

CRMP No. 1146 of 2025

¶8

1 - Naveen Bajaj S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Bajaj Aged About 29 Years R/o Sindhi Colony, Near Mahadev Medical, Balram Talkies Road, Police Station- Civil Line, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶9

2 - Ramesh Kumar Bajaj S/o Late Shri Daulat Ram Bajaj Aged About 55 Years R/o Sindhi Colony, Near Mahadev Medical, Balram Talkies Road, Police Station- Civil Line, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶10

... Petitioner(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

2 - Inspector General Of Police Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶14

3 - Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶15

4 - Station House Officer Police Station- Civil Line, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶16

5 - Parasram Bajaj S/o Late Shri Daulat Ram Bajaj Aged About 53 Years R/o Sindhi Colony, Near Mahadev Medical, Balram Talkies Road, Police Station- Civil Line, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Complainant)

¶17

... Respondent(s)

¶18

¶19

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A.

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

¶21

Judgment on Board

¶22

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶23

02.04.2025

¶24

Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 / State.

¶25

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:

¶26

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and also be pleased to quash the FIR bearing Crime No. 595/2024 (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Station- Civil Line, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), in the interest of justice ”

¶27

The facts of the case in a nutshell is that the complainant Parasram Bajaj lodged a written report at Police Station Civil Line, District - Bilaspur that he lives at Balram Talkies Road, Police Station - Civil Line, Bilaspur. He had opened two firms along with his brother namely Ramesh Kumar Bajaj and they were running both the firms together. Ramesh's son Naveen is graduate and the complainant is less educated, so being a son of his brother, he believed on him and all the work of bank and government offices were done by him. It is alleged

¶28

¶29

that the applicants/accused persons started to take advantage of the bank and office work and they started to irregularities of the amounts of shop and firm. They increased cash-credit limit from Rs. 65 lakh to Rs. One Crore in Maharashtra Bank, Madhya Nagri Chowk Branch and from Rs. 40 lakh to Rs. 70 lakh in Indian Overseas Bank, Shiv Talkies Branch by putting forged signature of the complainant without informing him, in which they mortgaged the shop of complainant Parasram Nayan Faishon situated at Old Bus Stand. The accused persons obtained agencies of Jockey Innerwear in the Year 2017-18 and they started to keep themselves the collection amounts of Jockey Innerwear. When the complainant has come to know about the same, he enquired the accused/applicants about the matter, then they gave a receipt dated 27.02.2022 in which they told to give Rs. 1,65,000/- to a businessman. It was come to know from Super Socks Company that the receipt is false. In this way, the applicants committed offence of cheating and put forged signature of the complainant. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, the police of Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur (C.G.) registered FIR bearing Crime No. 595/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of Indian Penal Code against the applicants and the matter is under investigation.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant and applicants are family members. They were running the family business but after some time, a dispute of balance sale amount or extent the time of payment and other bank cash/credit limit enhancement is a part of business transaction. After family dispute, they

¶31

¶32

separated the business and made allegations regarding false signature which is not disclosed at the time when they were running the family business together. He further submits that the petitioners have already been granted bail by this court, copies of which are also annexed with the present petition.

¶33

Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate submits that the investigation is still pending as certain information has been sought by the Investigating Officer from the Bank, in view of the same, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶34

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that though the FIR was registered on 04.07.2024, the investigation is still pending, as such, the concerned Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation within a period of 06 weeks from today and submit a Police Report under Section 193(3) of the BNSS before the Competent Court in accordance with law.

¶35

Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed off .

¶36

Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶37

Manpreet

Naveen Bajaj v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen Bajaj v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaswant Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ram Kumar Bharia Vs State of Chhattisgarh

A Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anil Tuteja Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Smt. Sunita Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Domsingh @ Paklu Vs State of Chhattisgarh