Basant Agrawal @ Lambu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

Basant Agrawal @ Lambu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge-sheet No. 149/2023, the order of cognizance and the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 714/2023, insofar as they relate to the petitioner, should be quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita on the grounds of alleged false implication as registered owner of the vehicle, absence of material implicating him, and defective investigation. +1 more

Court's answer

No case for interference is made out; the petition is dismissed as devoid of merit.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's contentions of false implication, lack of evidence and alleged defects in investigation are disputed questions of fact which cannot be examined at the quashing stage.

Key takeaways

Those disputed factual matters are to be considered by the trial Court during the course of trial.ratio¶34
The petitioner has not appeared before the trial Court, and charges have not been framed till date for that reason.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Original Jurisdiction (CRMP) under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking quashing of Charge-Sheet No. 149/2023 (offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 120-B and 34 IPC arising out of FIR No. 149/2019 dated 24.03.2019, Police Station Sakti, concerning alleged irregular transportation of about 500 bags of paddy on the strength of a delivery memo suspected to have been reused) and of the order of cognizance in Criminal Case No. 714/2023, insofar as they related to the petitioner, the registered owner of the intercepted truck CG-04 JA-9821 attached to a rice mill. HELD: The petitioner's pleas - that he was falsely implicated solely as registered owner, that no witness named him, that there was no confession, recovery or documentary evidence against him, and that the driver's memorandum statement (described as the most material witness) was not recorded - were disputed questions of fact, including lack of evidence and alleged defects in investigation, which cannot be examined at the quashing stage and are matters for the trial Court during trial; cognizance stood taken and only charges remained to be framed, charges not having been framed because the petitioner had not appeared before the trial Court. No case for interference was made out and the petition was dismissed as devoid of merit. Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge (order authored by the Chief Justice).

1

2026:CGHC:12842-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 784 of 2026

ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA

Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA

Basant Agrawal @ Lambu S/o Late Shri Hetram Agrawal Aged About 53 Years R/o Nehruchowk,ward No.05,baradwar, Police Station-Baradwar, District-Sakti(C.G.)

... Petitioner

versus

State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Sakti, District-Sakti (C.G.)

... Respondent

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Akhand Pratap Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

18.03.2026

Heard Mr. Akhand Pratap Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita with the following prayers :-

2

“(i) Quash and set aside the Charge-Sheet No. 149/2023, insofar as it relates to the present petitioner, filed for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, arising out of FIR No. 149/2019 dated 24.03.2019 registered at Police Station Sakti, District Sakti (Chhattisgarh).

(ii) Quash and set aside the order of cognizance dated 23.06.2022, insofar as it relates to the present petitioner, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti, in Criminal Case No. 714/2023, District Sakti (Chhattisgarh).

(iii) Quash the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 714/2023 between parties State of C.G. Vs Gaurishankar Agrawal pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti, District Sakti (Chhattisgarh) insofar as it relates to the present petitioner namely Basant Agrawal@ Lambu.

(iv) Pass any other order(s) or direction(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the registered owner of truck bearing registration No. CG-04 JA-9821, which was regularly attached to M/s Gaurishankar Agrawal’s Rice Mill for transportation of paddy and rice. The case arises from a complaint lodged by the District Marketing Officer, alleging irregularities in the transportation of paddy from the Sakti Paddy Procurement Centre. During an inspection on 15.03.2019, the

3

petitioner’s truck was found carrying approximately 500 bags of paddy, allegedly on the basis of a delivery memo suspected to have been reused. Based on the complaint, FIR No. 149/2019 dated 24.03.2019 was registered at Police Station Sakti under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against four persons, including the petitioner. During investigation, the truck was intercepted, found loaded with 500 bags of paddy allegedly sourced from the procurement centre, and was subsequently seized by the authorities. During course of investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet bearing No. 149/2023 was submitted before the Court of Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti on 21.06.2023 under Section 420, 409, 120-B, 34 of IPC against 4 accused persons including the petitioner and the learned Magistrate has already taken cognizance vide order dated 22.06.2023 (wrongly mentioned as 22.06.2022), however, charges have not been framed till date. Hence, this petition with the aforementioned prayers.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated solely on account of being the registered owner of the vehicle, without any material connecting him to the alleged offence. There is no statement, document, or evidence on record indicating his involvement, knowledge, or participation in the alleged act. He further submitted that the investigation is defective, as the memorandum statement of the

4

driver, being the most material witness, has not been recorded. Further, none of the witnesses examined during investigation have named or implicated the Petitioner in any manner. He also submitted that there is no confession, recovery, or documentary evidence against the Petitioner. Despite this, the charge-sheet has been filed in a mechanical manner without any substantive material, which amounts to abuse of the process of law, hence, he prayed that the proceedings be quashed in the interest of justice.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the petition and submitted that the present petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. It is contended that the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation clearly disclose commission of cognizable offences, and at this stage, only a prima facie case is required to be seen. It is further submitted that the truck owned by the Petitioner was found transporting a large quantity of paddy under suspicious circumstances on the basis of a delivery memo suspected to have been misused, thereby establishing a prima facie link with the alleged offence. He also submitted that after due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed on 21.06.2023 and the learned trial Court has already taken cognizance of the offences on 23.06.2023. However, the Petitioner is deliberately avoiding appearance before the trial Court, and for this reason, charges have not been framed till date. It is further contended that the grounds raised by the Petitioner pertain to disputed questions of fact and defence, which cannot

5

be adjudicated at this stage and are required to be examined during trial, hence, no interference is warranted and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

From the record, it is evident that the FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint alleging irregularities in transportation of paddy, and during investigation, the truck owned by the Petitioner was found involved in the alleged offence. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has already been filed on 21.06.2023 and the learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the offences on 23.06.2023. The submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner primarily relate to disputed questions of fact, including lack of evidence and alleged defects in investigation, which cannot be examined at this stage. The same are matters to be considered by the trial Court during the course of trial. It is also noted that the Petitioner has not appeared before the trial Court, and charges have not been framed till date for that reason.

In view of the aforesaid reasons, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed .

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

Chandra