Navneet Soni @ Pintu Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court)
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashment of FIR No. 39/2025 dated 26.05.2025 registered at Police Station Kusmi, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, for offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC. The petitioner also sought quashing of the charge-sheet dated 31.08.2025 and the order taking cognizance dated 23.08.2025.
The FIR was lodged on 27.05.2025 following a complaint alleging large-scale financial irregularities in Jila Sahakari Bank, Sankargarh/Kusmi Branch. An internal investigation and statutory audit reportedly found irregularities amounting to approximately ₹213.14 crores. A subsequent special audit indicated alleged financial irregularities of approximately ₹226 crores involving twelve named accused persons who allegedly opened fake bank accounts and transferred Kisan Credit Card funds of farmers. Certain amounts were transferred to various accounts, including the petitioner’s firm, M/s Jamuna Alankar Mandir. It was alleged that a co-accused bank employee transferred approximately ₹21.8 crores between 2018 and 2022 to the petitioner’s firm.
The petitioner, a gold merchant running a GST-registered jewellery business, contended that the co-accused and his wife were regular customers who purchased jewellery through lawful banking channels. All transactions were stated to be B2C transactions supported by GST invoices, bank statements, and statutory filings. The petitioner argued that even if the prosecution story was accepted in entirety, no offence was made out. It was contended that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were absent, no wrongful gain was derived, and no conspiracy was established. The petitioner relied on Supreme Court judgments to submit that continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process.
The State opposed the petition, submitting that investigation revealed repeated high-value transfers credited to the petitioner’s firm from accounts involved in irregularities. It was argued that the defence raised factual disputes requiring trial and that GST invoices or banking records did not conclusively exonerate the petitioner. The State emphasized that economic offences involving public money are grave and should not be quashed at the threshold where a prima facie case exists.
The Court observed that while exercising quashment powers, it is not required to conduct a mini trial or examine the probative value of evidence. Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and State v. M. Maridoss, the Court reiterated that quashing powers must be exercised sparingly and only where allegations do not disclose any cognizable offence.
Upon examining the FIR, charge-sheet and material on record, the Court found that audits had detected large-scale financial fraud involving public money and that substantial repeated transfers were made to the petitioner’s firm from accounts found involved in irregularities. Whether such transactions were genuine business dealings or part of a conspiracy, and whether the petitioner had knowledge of the illegal source of funds, were questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence at trial. The existence of GST compliance and banking records did not negate the allegations at this stage.
The Court held that the charge-sheet disclosed a prima facie case and that continuation of criminal proceedings could not be termed an abuse of process. The matter did not fall within the rarest of rare category warranting quashment. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Heard Mr.Manoj Paranjape, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Rishabh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Saumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No.1 /State.
2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with following prayers:
“I. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed by the petitioners.
II. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the H.R. bearing No. 39/2025 dated 26.05.2025 registered at Police Station Kusmi, District-Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh for the offence Under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
III. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash entire charge sheet/final report bearing No. 396/2025 filed on dated 31.08.2025 before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.).
IV. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order of taking cognizance dated 23.08.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh Criminal Case No. 1841/2025 in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh V. Tabrak Ali & Others, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate first class, in Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.) has taken cognizance of the impugned Chargesheet and registered the impugned criminal proceeding as Criminal Case no. 1841/2025 against the petitioner.
V. And to kindly grant any other relief to the petitioners as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case, may also granted to the Petitioners.”
3. The present case arises out of an F.I.R. lodged on 27.05.2025 by complainant Arvind Shrivastava, on the basis of a complaint made by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Sankargarh, to the Head Office of the Jila Sahakari Bank, Raipur. The complaint alleged that large-scale financial irregularities had taken place in Jila Sahakari Bank, Branch Sankargarh/Kusmi, involving suspicious transactions from Account Nos. 604007085677, 604007009117 and 604007013601.
4. Pursuant to the said complaint, the Bank constituted an internal investigation team and directed a statutory audit through its Chartered Accountant. As per the audit report, irregularities amounting to approximately 213,14,82,590/- were found in the aforesaid accounts. Subsequently, a special audit was conducted, which indicated alleged financial irregularities of approximately 226 crores, purportedly involving twelve named accused persons, who allegedly opened fake bank accounts and transferred Kisan Credit Card (KCC) funds of farmers.
5. It was further alleged that certain portions of the aforesaid amounts were transferred to various bank accounts, including accounts in the name of M/s Mahamaya Construction, Jamuna Alankar Mandir, and other individuals. The petitioner is a gold merchant and is running a jewellery business in the name and style of M/s Jamuna Alankar Mandir, situated at Ambikapur. The business is duly registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act. The allegation against the petitioner is that a co-accused, namely Ashok Soni, a bank employee, transferred an amount of approximately Z1.8 crores between the years 2018 to 2022 on different dates to the bank account of the petitioner’s firm, Jamuna Alankar Mandir.
6. The petitioner submits that Ashok Soni and his wife were regular customers of the petitioner’s jewellery shop since 2017-2018 and used to purchase gold jewellery and ornaments for personal use. Payments for such purchases were made through lawful banking channels, including NEFT, from the bank account of Ashok Soni to the bank account of M/s Jamuna Alankar Mandir. The petitioner states that all transactions with Ashok Soni were lawful B2C transactions, supported by valid GST invoices, banking records, and statutory tax filings.
7. Prior to the registration of the F.I.R., a Special Audit was conducted by the Chartered Accountants of the Bank for Kusmi and Sankargarh branches, a copy of the Special Audit Report dated 04.04.2025 has been annexed as Annexure P/21. As per the Special Audit Report, an amount of 2182.02 lakhs was transferred via NEFT to Jamuna Alankar Mandir from accounts belonging to AJSS Samiti Jamdi Shan, Mr. Alok Kumar, Mr. Airajul Ansari, and Mr. Ashok Kumar Soni. The report noted that out of 52 transactions, 44 transactions did not have supporting documents available at the branch level.
8. The petitioner submits that the absence of vouchers or documents at the bank branch pertains to internal bank record-keeping and does not relate to the petitioner’s business, as the petitioner has produced corresponding GST invoices and bank statements for the transactions received from Ashok Soni. During the hearing of the petitioner’s bail application, this Court directed the Investigating Officer to file an affidavit clarifying the allegations against the petitioner. In compliance, an affidavit dated 09.09.2025 was filed stating that alleged financial irregularities of 240,54,000/- pertained to 12 NEFT transactions credited to Jamuna Alankar Mandir and the petitioner was granted regular bail by this Court in MCRC No. 4926/2025 vide order dated 13.10.2025.
9. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that even if the entire prosecution story, as narrated in the F.I.R. and charge-sheet, is taken at its face value and accepted to be correct in its entirety, no offence whatsoever is made out against the present petitioner. The allegations contained in the complaint do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence against the petitioner. He further submits that the instant F.I.R. is liable to be quashed as it is a clear abuse of the process of law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947, has laid down guiding principles for quashment of criminal proceedings where continuation of prosecution would result in miscarriage of justice. He also submits that the essential ingredients of Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Sections 120-B and 34 of the IPC are completely absent in the present case. Even on a plain reading of the F.I.R. and accompanying material, no act or omission attributable to the petitioner satisfies the statutory ingredients of the aforesaid offences. He contended that this Court is empowered under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to quash criminal proceedings where the allegations in the F.I.R. or complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or where the evidence collected does not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. Continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to sheer abuse of the process of law. Neither has any loss been caused to the State Government nor has the petitioner derived any wrongful monetary gain. Hence, the F.I.R., charge-sheet, order taking cognizance, and all consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed. He further contended that the petitioner is a gold merchant by profession. Co-accused Ashok Soni and his wife used to visit the petitioner’s shop for purchasing gold jewellery since 2018 and used to make payments through lawful online banking modes. All transactions were commercial, lawful, and in the ordinary course of business. The petitioner has only carried out business transactions strictly in accordance with law. There is no material on record to establish any conspiracy between the petitioner and other co-accused. The petitioner has not received any wrongful gain nor facilitated any illegal transaction. The petitioner has duly issued GST invoices for every transaction and has filed annual GST returns for all relevant financial years, reflecting payment of GST on each transaction. All transactions are supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence. He also contended that none of the co-accused, in their memorandums or statements, have made any allegation against the present petitioner. Further, no prosecution witness has stated anything to indicate the petitioner’s involvement in any alleged conspiracy. The essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC, namely dishonest intention at the inception, wrongful gain, and wrongful loss, are completely missing. In the absence of these foundational elements, the offence of cheating is not made out. The complaint was primarily against branch officials of Kusmi and Shankargarh branches and not against the petitioner. The alleged offences are stated to have occurred between 2013 and 2022, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly three years, further weakening the prosecution case. He places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijaya Rao v. State of Rajasthan, (2005) 7 SCC 69, wherein it has been held that when the ingredients of the alleged offence are conspicuously lacking, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of court. The present case, even if accepted at face value, does not disclose criminal intent on the part of the petitioner. The prosecution has failed to establish any act of forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust, or use of forged documents attributable to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances, and settled legal position, learned Senior Advocate submits that continuation of criminal proceedings is an abuse of the process of law and the entire F.I.R., charge-sheet, cognizance order, and all consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed.
10. On the other hand, learned State Counsel, opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the F.I.R. and the charge-sheet disclose a well-planned conspiracy involving large-scale financial fraud committed through misuse of banking channels, and the petitioner cannot be permitted to seek quashment at this preliminary stage. It is contended that the role of the petitioner emerges from the material collected during investigation, which shows repeated high-value transactions credited to the petitioner’s firm from accounts found to be involved in financial irregularities. Learned State Counsel submits that the defence sought to be raised by the petitioner is essentially factual in nature and requires appreciation of evidence, which cannot be undertaken in proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The existence of GST invoices or bank transactions does not, by itself, exonerate the petitioner, particularly when the prosecution alleges that the transactions were part of the modus operandi adopted by the accused persons to siphon off public funds. It is further submitted that the investigation has revealed suspicious transactions lacking corresponding supporting documents at the bank level, and the petitioner is a beneficiary of the proceeds of crime. Whether the petitioner had knowledge of the illegal source of funds and whether the transactions were genuine business transactions are matters that can only be determined during trial. Learned State Counsel contends that the offences alleged under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Sections 120-B and 34 IPC are prima facie made out from the charge-sheet material, and at this stage, the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case exists, not whether conviction is certain. It is also submitted that economic offences involving public money are grave in nature and have a serious impact on society. Such offences should not be quashed lightly at the threshold, particularly when investigation has culminated in filing of the charge-sheet after due application of mind. As such, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
11. From perusal of the records, it transpires that an F.I.R. lodged on 27.05.2025 by complainant Arvind Shrivastava, on the basis of a complaint made by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Sankargarh, to the Head Office of the Jila Sahakari Bank, Raipur. The complaint alleged that large-scale financial irregularities had taken place in Jila Sahakari Bank, Branch Sankargarh/Kusmi, involving suspicious transactions from Account Nos. 604007085677, 604007009117, and 604007013601. Pursuant to the said complaint, the Bank constituted an internal investigation team and directed a statutory audit through its Chartered Accountant. As per the audit report, irregularities amounting to approximately 213,14,82,590/- were found in the aforesaid accounts. Subsequently, a special audit was conducted, which indicated alleged financial irregularities of approximately 226 crores, purportedly involving twelve named accused persons, who allegedly opened fake bank accounts and transferred Kisan Credit Card (KCC) funds of farmers. It was further alleged that certain portions of the aforesaid amounts were transferred to various bank accounts, including accounts in the name of M/s Mahamaya Construction, Jamuna Alankar Mandir, and other individuals. The allegation against the present petitioner is that a co-accused, namely Ashok Soni, a bank employee, transferred an amount of approximately 21.8 crores between the years 2018 to 2022 on different dates to the bank account of the petitioner’s firm, Jamuna Alankar Mandir.
12. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and having perused the F.I.R., charge-sheet and the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is made out.
13. It is well settled that while exercising powers of quashment, this Court is not required to conduct a mini trial or meticulously examine the probative value of the evidence collected during investigation. The Court is only required to see whether the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the material collected, if taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, disclose the commission of any cognizable offence.
14. The Supreme Court in the matter of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2021 SCC Online SC 315 has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. The Supreme Court has emphasised that though the court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit.
15. In State Represented by the Inspector of Police v. M.Maridoss & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.67/2023), decided on 9.1.2023, the Supreme Court has observed that it is a settled position of law that while exercising powers under Section 482, CrPC, the High Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. What is required to be considered at that stage is the nature of accusations and allegations in the FIR and whether the averments/allegations in the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of the cognizable offence or not.
16. From the material on record, it prima facie emerges that a large-scale financial fraud involving public money has been detected in the Jila Sahakari Bank, Sankargarh/Kusmi Branch, pursuant to statutory and special audits. The investigation reveals suspicious and high-value financial transactions routed through multiple bank accounts, including the account of the petitioner’s firm, M/s Jamuna Alankar Mandir. The allegation against the petitioner is not isolated or casual, but arises from repeated transfers of substantial amounts from accounts found to be involved in financial irregularities.
17. Whether the transactions credited to the petitioner’s account were genuine commercial transactions or were part of a larger conspiracy to siphon off public funds, and whether the petitioner had knowledge of the illegal source of such funds, are essentially questions of fact which can only be adjudicated upon appreciation of evidence during trial. Such disputed questions cannot be decided in proceedings seeking quashment under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
18. The reliance placed by the petitioner on GST invoices, banking channels and tax returns, though relevant for defence, does not conclusively establish innocence at this stage. The mere existence of banking transactions or tax compliance cannot, by itself, negate the allegations of conspiracy and misuse of banking channels, particularly when the prosecution alleges that such transactions were part of the modus operandi adopted by the accused persons.
19. Economic offences involving public money are grave in nature and have serious ramifications on society at large. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that such offences should not be quashed at the threshold unless the case falls within the rarest of rare categories. The present case does not fall in such an exceptional category.
20. This Court finds that the charge-sheet discloses a prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences alleged, and the continuation of criminal proceedings cannot be said to be an abuse of the process of law. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts and do not advance the petitioner’s case at this stage.
21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out for quashing the F.I.R., charge-sheet, order taking cognizance or the consequential criminal proceedings.
22. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).
