Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Sharanjeet Kaur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:17993-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1121 of 2026
1 - Smt. Sharanjeet Kaur Wd/o Late Jagjeet Singh, Aged About 62
Years, R/o Road No. 5, Near State Bank of India, New Shanti Nagar
District- Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Civil Line Raipur,
District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Jatin Choudhary S/o Late Jayant Choudhary, Aged About 43 Years
R/o Near By Tandon Dairy New Shanti Nagar, Civil Line, District- Raipur
(C.G.)
Digitally signed by
... Respondents
MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) Date: 2026.04.23 11:09:36 +0530 For Petitioner : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate.
For State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 21-04-2026
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of the impugned FIR, entire charge sheet, order taking cognizance dated 28.01.2026 and the entire criminal proceedings and prayed for the 2 following relief(s):-
"i. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023 filed by the petitioner, in the interest of justice.
ii. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the F.I.R. in crime no. 152/2025 registered at Police Station Civil Line, District Raipur on dated 11.04.2025 for the offence committed under section 420, 406, 467, 468, 470, 471, 201, 120-B, 34 of I.P.C..
iii. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire charge sheet bearing no. 20/2026 filed on 28.01.2026 before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Raipur, District Raipur in which the learned ACJM has taken cognizance in criminal case no.
1255/2026 for the offence committed under section 420, 406, 467, 468, 470, 471, 201, 120-B, 34 of I.P.C. (Annexure P/1 Colly) and the entire Criminal Proceedings in the interest of justice."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused in the offence of Crime No.152/2025 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur for the offences under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 470, 471, 201, 120B and 34 of the IPC. Son of the petitioner Balbir Singh and another person Devendra Sen are also co-accused persons in the case. The FIR was registered on 11-04-2025 on the instance of complainant Jatin Choudhari with the allegation that the present petitioner and her son Balbir Singh are his neighbour. The petitioner Saranjeet Kaur is an LIC agent having Agent Code 00984390. He purchased total 13 LIC policies in his own name and also in the name of his family members. He disclosed in his complaint each of policy 3 numbers, policy holders and yearly premium paying by the complainant to the petitioner. He also disclosed the transfer of amount of LIC premium through NEFT mode from his bank account to the bank account of the son of the petitioner, Balbir Singh. The said transfer of amount is made on the instance of the present petitioner. When he transferred the amount of LIC premium in the bank account of Balbir Singh, they also gave deposit receipts of the said LIC premium. The said policy was purchased by him since 2013. In the year 2024 at the time of filing of Income Tax return, he was in need of the deposit receipts and when he contacted the LIC office Pandari Branch, Raipur along with the receipts given by the petitioner and her son for the year 2022 and 2023 and asked for receipts for the year 2024, the person concerned of the LIC office informed him that the petitioner and her son have not deposited any amount as has been claimed by him and thus, the petitioner and her son have cheated him for Rs.5,75,304/-, from the Nitish Verma they cheated Rs.4,96,000/-, from Jagmohan Singh Nagpal Rs.5,93,649/- and from Bhushan Kumar Jhode Rs.28,88,827/- which comes to total Rs.45,53,780/- and then he lodged the report. Based on this report the FIR has been registered against the petitioner and her son. During the investigation the bank account statement were seized. The relevant LIC policy documents/bond papers have been seized, statement of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of usual investigation charge sheet was filed against the petitioner, her son Balbir Singh and another co-accused Devendra Sen.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that 4 there is no money transaction in the bank account of the petitioner and whatever transactions have been made by the complainant is in the bank account of her son. The petitioner is a LIC agent and working with utmost sincerity and honesty, however, when she came to know about illegal activities of her son Balbir Singh she herself had made a complaint to police. The petitioner was unaware about any forged receipts issued to the complainant. He would further submit that there is no document in the charge sheet with respect to issuance of any receipt by the petitioner or preparing any forged document. The petitioner was also awarded certificate of good performance for the year 2015 and 2019 and got appraisal from the LIC Department for her good work. The petitioner is old aged lady and suffering from various ailments. The FIR as well as criminal proceedings is ill motivated and only to extort money from her. No prima facie offence as alleged in the FIR as well as the charge sheet is reflected and therefore, the impugned FIR and charge sheet as well as the criminal proceeding against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the State opposes and has submitted that the petitioner being the LIC agent, responsible for transaction made under her agent code. The agency to conduct LIC business was issued to her and she along with her son committed the offence of cheating by taking huge amount of premium from the complainant, but has not deposited it with the concerned LIC Department so that the LIC policy can be honoured. It is not a single instance that after obtaining the amount from the complainant they have 5 not deposited it with LIC Department, but it is a sequence of event since long and huge amount of the complainant have not been deposited with LIC Department and issued forged receipts of deposition of the LIC premium. From the bank account statement it clearly transpires that the amount has been transferred from the bank account of the complainant. He would further submit the petitioner cannot absolved from her liability by simply saying that all the transactions have been made with her son and not with her and therefore she is not liable for any act of her son. There are ample and sufficient material against the petitioner which prima facie implicate her in the offence in question for which charge sheet has been filed and the proceeding of criminal case is pending before the learned trial Court, and thus, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition.
6. From perusal of the FIR it transpires that there are allegation against the petitioner that she being a LIC agent, running the business, she has been allotted agency to run LIC business, which shows that she is the key person under whose authorization her son and/or other persons are working. One cannot presume that without her code or signature any amount could be deposited or transferred with LIC Department towards premium of various customers. When she is having agency of LIC it is for her to take care of the account of the customers for whom she is working. It is not only a business of issuing 6 policy, but it is a business of trust. The petitioner is denying that the amount has not been paid by the complainant, but it is said that the amount has been deposited in the bank account of her son Balbir. When the complainant made allegation that the amount has been transferred in the bank account of her son Balbir on the instance of the petitioner it would reflect the plausible association of the petitioner and her son Balbir to misappropriate the amount deposited by the complainant for depositing it to the LIC Department as the premium of his LIC policy.
7. From the statement of Rajesh Lohana, Kuldeep Singh Bajava, Prakash Singh, Harminder Singh Saini, Nitish Kumar Verma, Bhushan Kumar Jhode, Jagmohan Singh Nagpal, Vijay Kumar Sen, Satinder Singh and Surinder Pal Singh it clearly reflects that there are close association of the petitioner with her son and when her activities came into knowledge of the victim who deposited the amount with them she avoided to meet them and to answer them.
8. At this juncture it would be apposite to refer the settled legal principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down the categories of cases where criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed including the cases where allegations do not prima facie constitute any offence or inherently improbable and it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 102 and 103 that - 7
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that 8 there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which criminal proceeding is a instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."
9. In the matter of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, 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 9 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 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 10 judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;"
10. Although the petitioner made submission that she herself has lodged a complaint to police against her son, but that itself cannot be a ground to quash the FIR as well as the criminal proceeding particularly when there are positive allegations against the petitioner in the statement made by the witnesses which is supported by the bank account statement and other LIC bond papers/documents.
11. In view of the above, prima facie material available in the charge sheet against the petitioner, contents of the FIR, bank account statement and also in view of the abovementioned judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are not inclined to quash the impugned FIR, charge sheet as well as the criminal proceeding against the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Aadil