Case Law Details
Chatrasaal Katiyar S/o Jagdish Katiyar Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court)
The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a petition by Chatrasaal Katiyar to quash an FIR related to an alleged extortion case. The court’s decision was based on a review of the facts, which indicated that the extorted money was transferred to Katiyar’s bank account.
The case began when an individual, identified as Respondent No. 2, filed a complaint with the police in Gandai, Chhattisgarh. She claimed that she had been threatened with the release of her obscene photos and videos and was extorted of ₹1,01,500 through Google Pay. When she scanned a QR code for payment, the account holder was shown as “Yashpal.” An FIR was registered against unknown persons under various sections of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and the Information Technology (IT) Act.
Katiyar, who owns a stationary shop in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, argued that he was wrongly implicated. He stated that a regular customer named “Yashpal” would often pay for goods by scanning his shop’s QR code, and that a ₹70,000 transaction from this customer was the only connection to the case. He claimed the police had a mala fide intention to frame him and that there was no concrete proof of his involvement.
The State’s counsel countered that the extorted funds were traced to Katiyar’s bank account. The court was not convinced by Katiyar’s defense, particularly the handwritten bill he provided as proof of a legitimate transaction, noting that its authenticity could not be verified at this stage.
In its judgment, the High Court concluded that a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 was not the right forum to examine the authenticity of the bill or the legitimacy of the transaction. The court stated that such factual disputes must be considered during a trial. Finding prima facie evidence of Katiyar’s involvement, the court dismissed his petition, stating there were no grounds to quash the FIR.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
1. In the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief:-
“It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the application by quashing the F.I.R. No. 143/2025 lodged by the respondent no. 2 dated 03.06.2025 at P.S. Gandai u/s 318(4), 319(2), 308(2) & 308(5) of B.N.S. sections 66(D) & 67(a) of I.T. Act on part of the present applicant, in the interest of justice.”
2. (A) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of a stationary shop at Devbramhpur, District Kanpur, U.P. and he runs his shop with the help of his younger brother. The respondent No. 2 has filed a written complaint before the P.S. Gandai, District Khairagarh Chhuikhadaan Gandai (C.G.) against the unknown person with an allegation that she has received fraud calls from the phone numbers 6386808378, 9305865167, 9208508489 & 9871428149 and threatened her to make viral her obscene photos and videos. She was also threatened to kill her by those persons and extorted Rs. 1,01,500/-from her through Gpay using QR code. When she scanned the QR code, the account holder name Yashpal was shown but his name is not in F.I.R. On the basis of the said written complaint, an F.I.R. was registered under sections 318(4), 319(2), 308(2) & 308(5) of BNS and Section 66(D) & 67(a) of Information Technology Act against the unknown person. Learned counsel further submits that someone used to come to the shop of the petitioner and used to purchase the stationary items and books from his shop and used to pay via Gpay (OnLine payment) in the name of Yashpal. Learned counsel would submit that the person in the name of Yashpal had paid Rs. 70,000/- in the petitioner’s account by scanning the QR code of his shop, because that person had purchased some stationary stuff and books from the shop of the petitioner, and only on that basis, present crime has been registered against the petitioner.
(B) Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned FIR has been lodged by the complainant/respondent No.2 against unknown persons by whom she received calls from different phone numbers for extortion and the petitioner has no connection with those phone numbers. He submits that someone who was regular customer in the petitioner’s shop used to purchase in the name of Yashpal and he used to take bills in the name of the Yashpal. He submits that the petitioner has been implicated in the alleged crime by the police with mala fide intentions. The petitioner has only been implicated as accused in the alleged crime only on the basis of suspicion and the police have no proof against the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner has involved in the aforesaid crime, the alleged amount has been transferred in the bank account of the petitioner, which has been paid online through QR code of the petitioner’s shop. He further submits that the bill which has been annexed in the petition has no sanctity as there is no GST number mentioned in the bill, it was handwritten and temporary receipt, at this stage, the authenticity of bill cannot be examined in a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents.
5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, as per the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2, when she scanned the QR code for payment with regard to extortion, the account holder of one Yashpal was shown and from the petitioner’s shop, transaction of the alleged amount has been took place in the name of Yashpal and the said alleged amount has been transferred through QR code (online payment) in the bank account of petitioner. The bill which has been annexed, is handwritten bill and has no sanctity, at this stage, the authenticity of bill as well as the plea of bonafide transaction cannot be examined in a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. The plea taken by the petitioner can only be taken into a consideration at the time of trial. Hence, we do not find any good ground to allow this petition, as prima facie, it appears that there is involvement of petitioner for commission of in question.
6. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
Author Bio
