Anand Shekhar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC25 Aug 2025CRMP/570/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CGHC Bilaspur CRMP No. 570 of 2025, decided 26/08/2025 by Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge — quashing of FIR under Section 528 BNSS; FIR No. 38/2024 dated 16.01.2024, P.S. Gobra Nawapara, Raipur; allegations under Sections 409, 420, 120B IPC (FIR under Sections 420/34 IPC); rice-supply business dispute of Rs. 7,50,000/- dated 15.07.2023 involving Jenex Grains Private Limited; amount fully repaid 05.03.2024 via RTGS Ref. ID 69227250; complainant requested closure (Annexure P-2); six-month delay in FIR; no prima facie offence; FIR quashed, petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Quashment of FIR No. 38/2024 dated 16.01.2024 (Police Station Gobra Nawapara, District Raipur) and a direction that no further investigation shall be conducted against the petitioners in respect of it. ¶¶36

Anand Shekhar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR bearing No. 38/2024 dated 16.01.2024 registered at Police Station Gobra Nawapara, District Raipur under Sections 420/34 IPC against the petitioners should be quashed. +1 more

¶¶25

Court's answer

Since the alleged amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- was fully repaid and no prima facie offence is made out against the petitioners, the FIR registered on 16.01.2024 against Anil Mishra, Shashikant Pandey and Anand Shekhar under Sections 409, 420 and 120B of the IPC is without merit; it is quashed and no further investigation shall be conducted against the petitioners in this regard.

¶¶35

Ratio / Principle

The alleged amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- was fully repaid on 05.03.2024 through RTGS (Ref. ID 69227250); the complainant himself requested the police not to pursue further investigation; there is a significant delay of over six months between the alleged incident (15.07.2023) and registration of the FIR (16.01.2024), casting doubt on the credibility of the complaint; no material evidence substantiates the claims of fraud, misrepresentation or criminal breach of trust; and learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute that the transaction was legitimate and the repayment was made — the allegations are unsubstantiated.

¶¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 528 BNSS — quashing of FIR No. 38/2024 dated 16.01.2024, P.S. Gobra Nawapara, District Raipur, registered on a complaint under Sections 420/34 IPC alleging offences under Sections 409, 420, 120B IPC — complaint alleged that on 15.07.2023 the petitioners took Rs. 7,50,000/- for supply of two truckloads of rice, diverted the first truck to Rewa (M.P.) and never delivered the second — held: amount fully repaid on 05.03.2024 through RTGS (Ref. ID 69227250) and complainant himself requested police not to pursue investigation (Annexure P-2); over six months' delay between alleged incident and FIR registration casts doubt on credibility; no material evidence of fraud, misrepresentation or criminal breach of trust; counsel for complainant did not dispute legitimacy of the transaction or the repayment — no prima facie offence made out — FIR quashed, no further investigation — Petition allowed. (Ramesh Sinha, C.J.; Bibhu Datta Guru, J.; 26/08/2025)

2025:CGHC:43193-DB

NAFR

Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL JHA JHA Date:2025.08.26 18:23:16 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRMP No. 570 of 2025

¶7

1 - Anand Shekhar S/o Goverdhan Das Aged About 36 Years R/o Kali Mandir Mohalla Pandey Bazar Azamgarh District - Azamgarh (U.P.)

¶8

2 - Anil Mishra S/o Ramurati Mishra Aged About 37 Years R/o Hatwa Nirbhyanath Post Patulakhi Block Hanumana Hatwa Chak -1 Manumana Rewa Madhya Pradesh

¶9

Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Home Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶12

2 - The Director General Of Police Police Department New Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

3 - Superintendent Of Police Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

4 - Station House Officer Police Station Gobra Nawapara Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶15

5 - Rahul Sundrani S/o Suresh Sundrani Aged About 31 Years R/o Chhata Road Police Station Gobra Nawapara District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶16

Respondent(s)

¶17

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶18

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Pawan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate
For State	: Mr.	Malay Jain, PL
For Resp. No. 2	; Mr.	Ankush Soni, Advocate

¶19

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board

¶21

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶22

26/08/2025

¶23

The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (CRMP) has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of the BNSS, seeking quashment of:

¶24

1. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023 filed by the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

¶25

2. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR bearing No. 38/2024 registered dated 16.01.2024 at police station Gobra Nawapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh filed under section 420, 34 of the I.P.C. in respect of the case of the petitioners, in the interest of justice.

¶26

3. 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.

¶27

Facts of the case that complainant, Rahul Sundarani, Director of Jai Shankar Food & Wood Private Limited, resident of Chhanta Road, Nawapara, Raipur, alleges that on 15.07.2023, the respondents—Anil Mishra, Shashikant Pandey, and Anand Shekhar (Director of Jenex Grains Private Limited)—cheated him by taking Rs. 7,50,000/- for the supply of 2 trucks (approx. 60 tons) of rice. It is alleged that the respondents promised to deliver the rice to the complainant’s company

¶28

¶29

but instead diverted the first truck to Rewa, M.P., and failed to deliver the second truck. Despite repeated requests and assurances, the respondents did not return the paid amount. The complainant asserts that the respondents acted in collusion and engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation and criminal breach of trust to wrongfully obtain Rs. 7,50,000/- for their personal gain. On these allegations, the complainant requested registration of an FIR against Anil Mishra, Shashikant Pandey, and Anand Shekhar under Sections 409, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the acts of the respondents are illegal and without basis. The FIR, filed on 16.01.2024 for an alleged incident of 15.07.2023, is belated and false. The petitioners had received Rs. 7,50,000/- from the complainant for purchase of rice, which was fully repaid on 05.03.2024 (Ref. ID 69227250), and the complainant even requested the police not to pursue further investigation (Annexure P-2). No offence is made out against the petitioners, and the complaint is based on fabricated allegations. No incriminating material exists, and all business transactions were duly settled. The FIR is therefore without merit and deserves to be quashed.

¶31

Learned counsel for Respondent No.2/Complainant does not deny that the transaction was a legitimate business deal and that the petitioners have repaid the alleged amount.

¶32

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and persused the pleadings.

¶33

¶34

The allegations made by the complainant concern a business transaction in which Rs. 7,50,000/- was paid for the supply of rice. The petitioners have demonstrated that the amount was fully repaid on 05.03.2024 through RTGS (Ref. ID 69227250), and the complainant himself requested the police not to pursue further investigation (Annexure P-2). There is a significant delay of over six months between the alleged incident (15.07.2023) and registration of the FIR (16.01.2024), raising questions regarding the credibility of the complaint. No material evidence has been presented to substantiate claims of fraud, misrepresentation, or criminal breach of trust. Furthermore, learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute that the transaction was legitimate and that the repayment was made, confirming that the allegations are unsubstantiated.

¶35

In view of the above analysis and the fact that the alleged amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- was fully repaid and no prima facie offence is made out against the petitioners, this Court finds the FIR registered on 16.01.2024 against Anil Mishra, Shashikant Pandey, and Anand Shekhar under Sections 409, 420, and 120B of the IPC to be without merit. Accordingly, the FIR is hereby quashed , and no further investigation shall be conducted against the petitioners in this regard.

¶36

The CRMP is accordingly, allowed .

¶37

Sd/Sd/-

¶38

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶39

(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice

¶40

Rahul

Anand Shekhar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Shekhar 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

Purushottam Pando @ Parshottam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Savita Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Alka Thakre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manohar Lal Agarwal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ganga Ram Satnami Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pradeep Singh Parihar Vs State of Chhattisgarh