Swati Gopal @ Singhal Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

2. Mr. Shilpi Shrivastava D/o Late Sh. K.K. Srivastava R/o Om Niwas Behind Manorma Dairy Near Jora Talab Gorapara Sarkanda District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Compalinant)

¶11

...Respondent(s)

¶12

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶13

For Petitioner	: Mr. Shivesh Kaushik, Advocate through
	VC along with Mr. Sanjay Kumar Soni, Advocate.
For Respondent/State	: Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate.

¶14

Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN BRIJMOHAN MORLE MORLE Date: 2026.03.10 18:32:59 +0530

¶15

2

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board

¶17

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶18

10.03.2026

¶19

1. Heard Mr. Shivesh Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner through video conferencing along with Mr. Sanjay Kumar Soni, learned counsel. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1.

¶20

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

¶21

“ (a) Quash FIR No. 561 of 2025 dated 18.04.2025 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, under Sections 420, 406, 384, 120-B and 34 of the IPC, and all consequential proceedings, if any, therefrom, insofar as they relate to the petitioner;

¶22

(b) Stay further investigation and all coercive steps against the petitioner during the pendency of the present petition; and

¶23

(c) Pass any other order(s) deemed fit in the interest of justice. ”

¶24

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant (respondent No. 2) was married to the petitioner’s relative (first cousin,

¶25

3

¶26

the complainant’s former husband). It is submitted that multiple litigations had arisen between the complainant and her husband and his family members, and several of those proceedings were being heard by the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Delhi. This background, according to the petitioner, has already been noticed by this Hon’ble Court while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner vide order dated 16.10.2025. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution story in the impugned FIR broadly alleges that the complainant and/or her mother advanced substantial sums of money to the petitioner and co-accused Amit Dewan and that, upon disputes arising between the parties, cheques were issued and later dishonoured, following which allegations of coercion, extortion and related offences were made, culminating in registration of the present FIR.

¶27

4. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the narrative set out in the FIR is self-contradictory, inherently improbable and motivated by matrimonial hostility. According to the petitioner, the allegations seek to give a criminal colour to what is essentially a monetary dispute arising out of alleged financial transactions. Learned counsel submits that prior to registration of the impugned FIR, the complainant had consciously elected to pursue civil and statutory remedies in relation to the same alleged transaction by issuing legal notices dated 26.10.2024 and 28.01.2025 alleging cheque dishonour and seeking recovery of the amount. It is further submitted that another legal notice dated 30.04.2025 was issued demanding repayment of the alleged amount, thereby demonstrating that the dispute was treated by

¶28

4

¶29

the complainant herself as a civil monetary dispute.

¶30

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a central assertion in the FIR is that the complainant and/or her mother were capable of advancing a sum of about Rs. 1 crore to the petitioner. This assertion, according to the petitioner, is inherently doubtful in view of the complainant’s earlier judicial conduct. It is contended that in earlier proceedings the complainant had claimed financial incapacity and had been provided legal aid by the Chhattisgarh High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is also submitted that an earlier FIR lodged by the complainant in the year 2017 records that she and her mother were unable to arrange even a relatively small amount, which contradicts the allegation that they were capable of advancing a loan of Rs. 1 crore.

¶31

6. It is further argued that the prosecution story is inherently improbable because, at the relevant time, the complainant’s matrimonial relationship had already broken down and several litigations were pending between her and her husband and his family members before various courts, including the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In such circumstances, according to the petitioner, it is highly unlikely that the complainant and her mother would voluntarily advance a substantial amount to persons closely connected with the very matrimonial family against whom she was simultaneously litigating.

¶32

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant had voluntarily returned the cheques on 03.03.2025 and accepted a settlement amount of Rs. 5.34 crores on 04.03.2025 during the hearing

¶33

5

¶34

of Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 725/2024 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and thereafter lodged the present FIR on 18.04.2025. According to the petitioner, this sequence demonstrates mala fide intent and abuse of criminal process.

¶35

8. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the petition and submits that the FIR discloses the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 420, 406, 384 and 120-B of the IPC. It is submitted that the allegations disclose that the petitioner and co-accused persons had obtained a substantial amount of money from the complainant and her mother on the pretext of repayment within a stipulated time, executed an MOU acknowledging the liability, and thereafter issued several cheques which were dishonoured for various reasons including closure of bank account, insufficient funds, stoppayment instructions and signature mismatch. According to the State, these allegations prima facie disclose dishonest intention and criminal breach of trust. It is further submitted that the pleas raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be examined in proceedings seeking quashing of the FIR and must be investigated in accordance with law.

¶36

9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, including the impugned FIR.

¶37

10. A perusal of the FIR reveals that the complainant, Shilpi Srivastava, daughter of Late Shri K.K. Srivastava, aged about 37 years and resident of Om Niwas near Manorama Dairy, Jorapara, Sarkanda,

¶38

6

¶39

District Bilaspur (C.G.), states that her marriage was solemnized in the year 2012 with Varun Gopal, son of Shri Manmohan Gopal, resident of Delhi, which has subsequently been dissolved by divorce. The complainant states that several litigations arising out of her matrimonial dispute were pending between her and her husband and his family members before various courts, including proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Delhi. According to the FIR, Amit Dewan and Swati Gopal, who are distant relatives of her former husband, were on cordial terms with the complainant and had assisted her in relation to the pending litigations. It is alleged that during the period between 2018 and 2021, the said persons gained the confidence of the complainant and her mother, Smt. Anjula Srivastava, and borrowed a sum of Rs. 1 crore in installments for their personal needs, out of which Rs. 10 lakhs was returned through a demand draft. The FIR further states that on 23.11.2021 an MOU was executed before a Public Notary at Patiala House Court, Delhi, wherein the accused acknowledged borrowing Rs.1 crore and agreed to repay the balance amount of Rs. 90 lakhs within 4– 5 months. However, the complainant alleges that the amount was not repaid and that the accused repeatedly issued cheques in their own names and in the names of their relatives as security, which were subsequently dishonoured for various reasons. It is further alleged that cheques amounting to Rs. 88 lakhs issued in June–July 2024 were dishonoured and that the accused later insisted that the original cheques be returned as a condition for giving consent to the sale of a property at Hari Nagar, Delhi during settlement proceedings before the

¶40

7

¶41

Hon’ble Supreme Court. According to the complainant, she returned the cheques on 03.03.2025 and thereafter received the settlement amount of Rs. 5.34 crores during the hearing of Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 725/2024 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 04.03.2025, but the accused persons failed to repay the remaining amount of ₹88 lakhs thereafter. On these allegations, offences under Sections 420, 406, 384 and 120-B of the IPC have been alleged.

¶42

11. It is well settled that the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) is extraordinary in nature and must be exercised sparingly and with great caution. The Court must examine whether the allegations made in the FIR, if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence.

¶43

12. The principles governing exercise of such jurisdiction have been authoritatively laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , AIR 1992 SC 604 ; Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill , (1995) 6 SCC 194 ; Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi , (1999) 3 SCC 259 ; Medchl Chemicals & Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. , (2000) 3 SCC 269 ; State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo , (2005) 13 SCC 540 ; and Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra , 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 , which consistently hold that the Court should refrain from entering into disputed questions of fact at the stage of quashing.

¶44

8

¶45

13. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the allegations contained in the FIR, when taken at their face value, disclose that the accused persons had obtained a substantial amount of money from the complainant and her mother, acknowledged such liability through an MOU, and thereafter issued multiple cheques which were dishonoured for various reasons. Whether these allegations are ultimately proved or not is a matter that can only be determined after investigation and, if necessary, during trial.

¶46

14. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner regarding the financial capacity of the complainant, the surrounding matrimonial disputes and the nature of the transactions involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be conclusively examined in proceedings seeking quashing of the FIR.

¶47

15. It is also well settled that the mere existence of a civil dispute or availability of civil remedies does not by itself bar criminal prosecution where the factual allegations disclose ingredients of criminal offences.

¶48

16. In the considered opinion of this Court, the allegations contained in the FIR disclose the commission of cognizable offences warranting investigation. No case is therefore made out for exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR.

¶49

17. Consequently, the petition is dismissed . However, it is clarified that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not prejudice the rights of the parties during the course of investigation or trial. The petitioner shall be at

¶50

9

¶51

liberty to avail such remedies as may be available to him in accordance

¶52

with law.

¶53

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶54

Brijmohan

Swati Gopal @ Singhal v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swati Gopal @ Singhal v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Patel Vs Smt. Priyanka Shrivas

Jaya Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajesh Kamde Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amit Kumar Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Balduram Sahu Aged About 84 Years (Dead) through Lrs Vs Somin Bai

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Shahil Bhardwaj