Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR and charge-sheet under Section 318(4) BNS for allegedly cheating a complainant of Rs. 18,71,000 by selling mortgaged land while concealing the mortgage. The court held disputed facts required trial and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
2026:CGHC:13103-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 788 of 2026
Anil Dubey S/o Late Durga Prasad Dubey Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Thelki, Police Station Sargaon, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The SHO, Police Station Sargaon, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
2. Manoj Kumar Sharma S/o Late Arun Kumar Sharma Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Basin, Police Station Sargaon, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. (Complainant)
...Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
19.03.2026
1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Also heard Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1.
Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN BRIJMOHAN MORLE MORLE Date: 2026.03.20 11:58:42 +0530
2
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
“ I. First Information Report (FIR) No. 178 of 2025 dated 28.10.2025 registered at Police Station Sargaon, District Mungeli (C.G.);
II. Consequent charge-sheet bearing No. 168 of 2025 dated 06.10.2025 emanating from the aforesaid FIR filed for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) BNS;
III. The order dated 15.12.2025, taking cognizance of the aforesaid charge-sheet and the charge framed on 20.01.2026 by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh;
IV. The consequent orders and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5430 of 2025, parties being ‘State of Chhattisgarh vs. Anil Dubey’, pending before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the recorded owner of lands bearing Khasra No. 89/14, admeasuring 2.35 acres (approximately 0.953 hectare), and Khasra No. 86/43, admeasuring 49 dismal (approximately 0.198 hectare), situated at Village Thelki, P.H. No. 39, R.I.C. Pathariya, Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.). It is submitted that respondent No. 2/complainant,
3
Manoj Kumar Sharma, lodged a complaint alleging that he had approached the petitioner for purchase of the said lands for a total consideration of Rs. 22,00,000/-. It is further submitted that three agreements dated 16.06.2022, 16.05.2023 and 28.01.2025 were executed between the parties, under which certain amounts were allegedly paid partly through cheques and partly in cash.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the dispute is purely civil in nature. It is argued that the petitioner had obtained a Kisan Credit Card (KCC) loan by mortgaging the land, and the complainant has falsely alleged concealment of such fact. It is further contended that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs. 5,30,000/- from the complainant and had repaid an amount of Rs. 6,39,000/- through banking channels. It is also submitted that the complainant misused blank stamp papers and fabricated agreements to falsely project the transaction as one of sale. He further submitted that an earlier complaint filed by the complainant was enquired into by Police Station Sargaon, and as per enquiry report dated 13.05.2025, no cognizable offence was found to be made out. According to the petitioner, suppression of this fact and the subsequent registration of FIR No. 178 of 2025 dated 28.10.2025 amounts to abuse of the process of law.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that despite the aforesaid facts, a charge-sheet dated 06.12.2025 has been filed under Section 318(4) of the BNS, and cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mungeli. It is contended that the
4
allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence alleged, particularly the requirement of dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. Reliance has been placed upon Radheyshyam and others vs. State of Rajasthan & another , reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2311 ; Vinod Natesan v. State of Kerala , reported in (2019) 2 SCC 401 ; and Sachin Garg v. State of U.P. , reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 82 .
6. Per contra , learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the investigation has been conducted in accordance with law and sufficient material has been collected during investigation, including statements of witnesses and documentary evidence, on the basis of which the charge-sheet has been filed. It is contended that at this stage, the Court cannot appreciate evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the material available on record.
8. As per the FIR, the allegation against the petitioner is that he executed agreements to sell the subject land in favour of the complainant and received substantial consideration in installments through cash and cheques, while allegedly concealing the fact that the land was already mortgaged with a bank for obtaining a Kisan Credit Card (KCC) loan. It is alleged that by such concealment and inducement, the complainant was cheated of an amount of Rs.18,71,000/-. On the basis of the said allegations, FIR No. 178 of
5
2025 dated 28.10.2025 came to be registered at Police Station Sargaon for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the BNS.
9. The charge-sheet filed after completion of investigation reflects that statements of the complainant and witnesses were recorded, the mortgaged status of the land was verified from the concerned bank, and details of financial transactions were collected. It is further stated that during investigation, material was found against the petitioner and, upon interrogation, he is alleged to have made inculpatory statements. On the basis of such material, the investigating agency has formed an opinion that sufficient grounds exist to prosecute the petitioner, and accordingly, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court.
10. The legal position governing the quashing of criminal proceedings is well settled. The power to quash an FIR or charge-sheet is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. At this stage, the Court is required to examine whether the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. The Court cannot undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact.
11. In the present case, the FIR and the charge-sheet disclose that the complainant and the petitioner are closely related and had entered into transactions concerning the subject land. The allegation is that the petitioner executed agreements to sell the land and received substantial consideration while allegedly concealing the fact that the land was
6
already mortgaged.
12. The material collected during investigation, including statements of witnesses, verification from the bank regarding mortgage of the land, and financial transactions, prima facie supports the prosecution case at this stage. The charge-sheet also records alleged inculpatory statements attributed to the petitioner.
13. The contention of the petitioner that the dispute is purely civil in nature and that the agreements are fabricated, as also the plea that the transaction was a loan which has been repaid, are all matters involving disputed questions of fact requiring evidence and cannot be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings for quashing.
14. The existence of a prior enquiry report, as relied upon by the petitioner, does not by itself bar registration of an FIR or continuation of criminal proceedings, particularly when subsequent investigation has resulted in collection of material supporting the prosecution case. The evidentiary value of such material is to be tested during trial.
15. At this stage, it cannot be said that the allegations, taken at their face value, do not disclose the ingredients of the offence alleged. The question whether there was dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction is a matter to be established during trial.
16. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner lay down the settled principle that purely civil disputes should not be given a criminal colour. However, the applicability of the said precedents depends upon the facts of each case. In the present case, the allegations, coupled with the
7
material collected during investigation, prima facie disclose elements which cannot be said to be entirely devoid of criminality. Accordingly, the said judgments are distinguishable on facts and are not applicable at this stage.
17. The parameters governing the exercise of jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings have been authoritatively laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 . It is well settled that where the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclose the commission of an offence, the proceedings ought not to be quashed.
18. In the present case, the allegations do not fall within any of the categories enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra) warranting interference. It cannot be said that the allegations are inherently improbable or absurd. Nor can it be conclusively held at this stage that the proceedings are manifestly mala fide. The defence raised by the petitioner involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be examined in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
19. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not fall within the category of exceptional cases warranting interference for quashing of the FIR or the charge-sheet.
20. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed . It is, however, clarified that any observations made herein
8
are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not prejudice the trial or be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan
2 issues framed by the court
Whether FIR No. 178 of 2025 and the charge-sheet under Section 318(4) BNS arising from a land-sale dispute should be quashed as a civil dispute given criminal colour.
Whether a prior police enquiry finding no cognizable offence bars registration of a fresh FIR and continuation of proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Radheyshyam and others vs. State of Rajasthan & anotherDistinguished¶16
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2311 · Who else cites this
Vinod Natesan v. State of KeralaDistinguished¶16
(2019) 2 SCC 401 · Who else cites this
Sachin Garg v. State of U.P.Distinguished¶16
2024 SCC OnLine SC 82 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalApplied¶17
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Anil Dubey S/o Late Durga Prasad Dubey
State of Chhattisgarh Through The SHO, Police Station Sargaon, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
Manoj Kumar Sharma S/o Late Arun Kumar Sharma (Complainant)
Ramesh Sinha
Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
