Rajkumar Rajpal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:31242

¶3

RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.07.09 10:20:40 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MCRCA No. 925 of 2025

¶7

1 - Rajkumar Rajpal S/o Late Shri Tikamdas Rajpal Aged About 57 Years R/o 302, Royal Exotica, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2 - Bhagwan Das Rajpal S/o Late Shri Tikamdas Rajpal Aged About 55 Years R/o Flat No. 704, Block D, Orange County, Vidhan Sabha Road, Mowa, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Applicants

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Tilda-Newra, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Respondent(s)

¶13

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶14

For Applicants : Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate For State : Mr. Shaqib Ahmed, PL

¶15

And

¶16

CRMP No. 743 of 2023

¶17

1 - Rajkumar Rajpal S/o Late Shri Tikamdas Rajpal, Aged About 57 Years R/o 302, Royal Exotica, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶18

2 - Bhagwan Das Rajpal, S/o Late Shri Tikamdas Rajpal, Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No. 16, Deen Dayal Updhayay Ward, Tilda, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

--- Applicants

2

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶23

2 - The Superintendent Of Police Sp Office, Vidhansabha, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶24

3 - The Station House Officer, P.S. Tilda - Newra, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶25

4 - Vishal Kesrimal Agrawal S/o Kesrimal Agrawal, Aged About 50 Years R/o K.K. Rice Mill, Newra, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶26

Respondent(s)

¶27

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System

¶28

For Applicants :	Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate
For State :	Mr. Shaqib Ahmed, PL
For Respondent No.4:	Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate

¶29

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶30

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board

¶31

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶32

08/07/2025

¶33

MCRCA No. 743 of 2023

¶34

This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 140/2023 registered at Police Station – Tilda-Newra, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of the IPC.

¶35

The prosecution's case, in brief, is that Complainant Vishal Kesrimal Agrawal lodged a written report against the applicants with the

¶36

3

¶37

allegations that the applicants, on the pretext of selling the land, had taken Rs. 98,00,000/- from him and subsequently, refused to sell the land and as such, they have committed cheating with him.

¶38

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of 9 years and bald and vague allegations have been levelled against the applicants. He would further submit that the applicants are ready to cooperate with the investigation and as such, the benefit of anticipatory bail may be extended to them.

¶39

On the other hand, learned State counsel for the non-applicant/State, would oppose the bail application of the applicant.

¶40

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶41

Considering the facts & circumstances of the case and particularly considering the fact that the period of occurrence of cheating has been mentioned as 30/07/2014 and about 11 years have elapsed from that day, whereas the FIR itself has been lodged after a delay of 9 years; without commenting anything on merits, we are inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicants.

¶42

Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant No.1- Rajkumar Rajpal and applicant No. 2 Bhagwan Das Rajpal on each of them executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

¶43

(a) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to

¶44

4

¶45

dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court.

¶46

(b) They shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.

¶47

(c) They shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶48

(d) The applicants and the surety shall submit a copy of their adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court.

¶49

(e) They shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future.

¶50

CRMP No. 743 of 2023

¶51

The instant CRMP, filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, seeks quashment of the FIR bearing No. 140/2023 lodged by respondent No. 4 in the P.S. Tilda- Newra, District Raipur for the offence under Section 420, 34 of the IPC and all the consequential criminal proceedings arising from the said FIR dated 30/03/2023.

¶52

Facts in the nutshell are that Complainant- Vishal Kesrimal Agrawal, has lodged a FIR against the applicants regarding the fraud and cheating done by the applicants alleging therein that due to their joint business, the applicants and the complainant used to meet each other and visit each other's homes. The Applicants had discussed with him about selling a piece of land adjoining their Rajpal Rice Mill and asked him if he was interested in buying it. Subsequently, after agreeing to the proposal of the applicants, he paid him total Rs. 98,00,000/- on different

¶53

5

¶54

dates through cheque. After lot time elapse, the applicants denied to sell the land and threatened him with dire consequences. Subsequently, the present FIR has been lodged.

¶55

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR has been maliciously lodged only to harass the present applicants. The impugned FIR has been lodged after a delay of 9 years and the Complainant/respondent No.4 has not offered plausible explanation. He would submit that as per the FIR itself, it is apparent that the dispute is of purely of Civil Nature. As such, he prays for quashment of the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings.

¶56

Learned counsel for the State as well as respondent No.4 opposes the submission of made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submit that this is a matter of fraud and a hefty amount of Rs 98,00,000/- has been cheated by the applicants on the false promise to sell the land, and as such, the matter is under investigation and a notice under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. has been issued. He would submit that the Complainant has submitted documentary evidences with respect to the alleged offence and therefore, the FIR has been registered. He prays for dismissal of the CR.M.P.

¶57

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

¶58

On perusal of the FIR dated 03/03/2023, it is quite vivid that the Applicants, who were having good terms with the complainant due to business, had initially discussed with him about selling a piece of land adjoining to their Rajpal Rice Mill and when the Complainant agreed to

¶59

6

¶60

buy, they obtained/received Rs. 98,00,000/- from him through cheques and subsequently, after lapse of some time, denied to sell the land, as such, prima-facie it is a case of fraud. It is also noteworthy to mention here that in the case at hand there is an alleged fraud of whopping amount of Rs 98,00,000/-, which has been cheated by the applicants on the false promise to sell the land, and as such, the matter is under investigation and even a notice under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. has been issued. Further, it is also apparent that the documentary evidence with respect to the alleged offence has been submitted by the Complainant in the present case and as such, the FIR has been registered and matter is under investigation.

¶61

Having considered the above fact that it is case of fraud; the FIR primafacie shows evidence against the applicants; and specific allegations have been levelled against the applicants, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the matter requires investigation and as such, this Court does not find any ground to entertain this Cr.M.P.

¶62

Ergo , the Cr.M.P., sans substratum , is liable to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶63

Sd/Sd/(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶64

Rahul/Gowri

Rajkumar Rajpal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar Rajpal 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

Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale (in Person) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kuber Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rambharos Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Paikra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anshul Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satpal Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh