Chattisgarh High Court
Manendra Jaiswal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 May, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:23110-DB
Digitally signed by
ALOK SHARMA
NAFR
Date: 2026.05.18
11:37:54 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1373 of 2026
1 - Manendra Jaiswal S/o Mahesh Jaiswal Aged About 42 Years
Resident Of Ward No.9 Lawan P.S. Lawan Dist- Baloda Bazaar-
Bhatapara (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station
Lawan District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) P.S. Kosdol Wrongly
Mentioned In Find Report
2 - Ramesh Kumar Dhobi S/o Bhupal Ram Dhobi Aged About 53 Years
R/o Village- Tilda (Kori) Police Station Lawan District- Baloda Bazar-
Bhatapara (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 15/05/2026
1. Heard Mr. Samir Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. S. Baghel, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the Respondent/State.
2. Present is a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioner 2 under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR No. 496/2024 registered at Police Station Lawan, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara for offences under Sections 420, 421, 120-B and 34 of the IPC, Sections 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors' Interest Act, 2005, as well as for quashing of Final Report/Charge-sheet No. 378/2025 and the order taking cognizance dated 03.01.2026 passed on the aforesaid charge-sheet, along with the entire criminal proceedings arising therefrom, and prayed for the following reliefs:-
"Quash the FIR No. 496/2024 dated 27.11.2024 under Section 420, 34 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Lawan, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.).
Quash the Final Report/Charge Sheet No. 378/2025 dated 10.12.2025 under Section 420, 421, 120(B) and 34 of the IPC and Section 4, 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (Chit-fund Act) and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors' Interest Act, 2005.
Set-aside/Quash the order of Cognizance dated
03.01.2026 and further proceedings initiated from F.I.R. No 496/2024 against the petitioner (Annexure P/1)."
3. The brief facts of the case are that FIR No. 496/2024 was registered at Police Station Lawan, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara for offences under Sections 420, 421, 120-B and 34 of the IPC, Sections 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 3 1978 and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors' Interest Act, 2005 on the allegation that the complainant along with several other persons invested money in "Money Grow Investment Scheme" on the assurance of receiving double returns within 25 months and were allegedly cheated to the extent of about Rs.1,93,64,000/-. During investigation, certain cheque agreements relating to the scheme were seized and on the basis of memorandum statements of co- accused persons, the name of the present petitioner was implicated alleging that amounts collected from investors were deposited in the bank accounts of the principal accused persons. The petitioner, however, is himself an investor/victim who had invested approximately Rs.28,00,000/- in the said scheme in good faith and suffered substantial financial loss. There is no material to show that the petitioner induced any person to invest money or derived any wrongful gain from the alleged transactions. After completion of investigation, Final Report/Charge-sheet No. 378/2025 was filed and cognizance was taken by the learned Court below vide order dated 03.01.2026, against which the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 has been preferred.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case merely on the basis of suspicion and memorandum statements of co-accused persons, despite there being no independent material connecting him with the alleged offence. It is submitted that the petitioner himself is an investor/victim of the alleged "Money Grow Investment Scheme" and had invested 4 substantial amount in good faith, due to which he has also suffered huge financial loss. Learned counsel would further submit that during investigation no material has been collected to show that the petitioner was involved in the management, administration or operation of the alleged scheme, nor is there any evidence indicating that he induced any person to invest money or derived any wrongful gain from the alleged transactions. It is also submitted that except memorandum statements, which are inadmissible in evidence without corroboration, no document or bank transaction has been brought on record to establish the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offence. Learned counsel would further submit that the vehicle alleged to have been purchased from the so-called scam amount was in fact purchased through bank finance prior to the alleged incident, thereby falsifying the prosecution story. It is argued that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC, particularly dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction, are completely absent against the petitioner. Learned counsel would also submit that the dispute essentially arises out of financial transactions and investment disputes, for which proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are already pending, demonstrating the civil nature of the dispute. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court in M.Cr.C. No. 559/2026 and has not misused the liberty granted to him. Therefore, continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law and miscarriage of justice, hence the FIR, charge-sheet, order of 5 cognizance and entire criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel would oppose the petition and submit that during investigation sufficient material has been collected showing the involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged illegal investment scheme. It is submitted that the complainant along with several other investors were induced to invest money on the assurance of receiving double returns within 25 months and huge amounts were collected from innocent persons. Learned State counsel would further submit that during investigation cheque agreements, documents relating to "Money Grow Investment Scheme" and bank transaction details were seized and from the memorandum statements of co-accused persons it has surfaced that the amounts collected from investors were deposited in bank accounts linked with the accused persons including the present petitioner. It is contended that the role of the petitioner cannot be examined in detail in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS, as the charge-sheet discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offences. Learned State counsel would also submit that the defence raised by the petitioner that he himself is an investor/victim is a disputed question of fact which can only be adjudicated during trial on appreciation of evidence. It is further submitted that at the stage of cognizance and framing of charge, meticulous appreciation of evidence is not permissible and this Hon'ble Court, while exercising inherent jurisdiction, ought not to conduct a mini-trial. Therefore, the petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 6 material annexed with the petition.
7. From perusal of the record, this Court finds that the impugned FIR has been registered alleging large-scale cheating of investors under the guise of "Money Grow Investment Scheme" wherein several persons were induced to invest money on the promise of receiving double returns within a stipulated period. During investigation, the investigating agency collected documents relating to the scheme, bank transaction details and memorandum statements of co-accused persons, on the basis of which the present petitioner came to be implicated. Though it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that he himself is an investor/victim and has no role in the management or operation of the alleged scheme, such defence involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. At the stage of exercising inherent jurisdiction, this Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or conduct a mini-trial and is only required to examine whether the allegations and material collected during investigation prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences. Since the material placed along with the charge- sheet prima facie indicates involvement of the petitioner in the transactions connected with the alleged scheme, this Court is of the opinion that it cannot be said that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, no case for interference or quashment of the impugned FIR, charge-sheet, order of cognizance and further proceedings is made out. 7
8. In the matter of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in AIR Online 2021 SC 192, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 23 held as under :-
"23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or "no coercive steps to be adopted", during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or "no coercive steps to be adopted"
during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:
(i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;
(ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;
(iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;
(iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the 'rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).
(v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon 8 an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
(vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
(vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;
(viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;
(ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;
(x) Save in exceptional cases where non-
interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;"
9. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the impugned FIR was registered alleging large-scale cheating of investors under the guise of "Money Grow Investment Scheme", wherein several persons were induced to invest money on the assurance of double returns within a stipulated period and were allegedly cheated to the extent of about Rs.1,93,64,000/-.
During investigation, documents relating to the scheme, cheque agreements, bank transaction details and memorandum statements of co-accused persons were collected, on the basis of which the present petitioner has been implicated. Though learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner himself is an investor/victim and there is no material to show his involvement in the alleged offence, such 9 contention raises disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS, particularly when charge-sheet has already been filed and cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court. At this stage, this Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or conduct a mini-
trial, and the defence of the petitioner is a matter to be considered during trial.
10. Considering the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation culminating into filing of the charge-sheet, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie cognizable offences are made out against the petitioner and it would not be proper to quash the criminal proceedings at their inception. The contention of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated only on the basis of memorandum statements of co-accused persons and that he is an investor/victim, are matters of evidence which can be appropriately examined by the learned trial Court during trial. In view of the settled legal position that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage.
11. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein it has been held that quashing of FIR should be exercised sparingly and criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage where cognizable offences are disclosed, this Court finds no exceptional circumstance warranting interference in the present case.10
12. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Alok