The court upheld that allegations in an FIR justify police investigation if they disclose a cognizable offence, emphasizing the limited scope of quashing powers.

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

17 / 09 / 202 5

1. Heard Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1.

ROHIT KUMAR 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section CHANDRA Digitally signed by R C O H H AN IT D K R U A MAR 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) with the following prayers :-

“It is therefore, prayed that the instant petition may kindly be allowed and FIR of Crime No. 116/2025 dated 16.05.2025 registered at P.S. Gidhouri, Distt. - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for commission of offence u/s 318(4) of BNS against the petitioner may kindly be quashed, in the interest of justice.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/Respondent No. 2 lodged a report at Police Station Gidhouri on 16.05.2025 stating that she had entered into an agreement to sell two parcels of land in her village Kumhari to the petitioner/accused, Rajesh Kumar Sahu, for a total consideration of Rs. 57,60,000/-. She received an advance payment of Rs. 3,00,000/-, and the petitioner/accused promised to pay the remaining amount at the time of registration. At the time of executing the sale deed, the accused gave two cheques to the complainant-one for Rs. 8,00,000/-and another for Rs.46,60,000/-. While the cheque of Rs.8,00,000/- was successfully encashed, the second cheque for Rs. 46,60,000/- was dishonoured by the bank due to a mismatch in the accused's signature and insufficient funds in his account. It is further alleged that the accused took advantage of the complainant's illiteracy, failed to mention the agreed sale amount in the sale deed, and deliberately concealed the actual sale consideration. By doing so, the accused fraudulently deceived the complainant and misappropriated Rs. 46,60,000/-. Based on this complaint, FIR was registered at Police Station Gidhauri (Tundra) as Crime No.

116/2025 under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

4. The petitioner apprehending his arrest moved an application before this Court seeking anticipatory bail which was registered as MCRCA No. 1165 of 2025 and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 31.07.2025 and the petitioner was enlarged on anticipatory bail and the investigation is pending against him. Hence, this petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that even if the allegations made in the impugned FIR are taken at their face value, do not constitute the ingredients of the offence under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He further argued that a sale deed was executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 on 07.03.2025 with respect to the land bearing khasra No. 51/2, 51/4 total area 0.153 Hectare situated at village & post Kumhari, P.C.N. 04, R.N.M. Gidhouri, Tahsil Tundra, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for a consideration of Rs.8,00,000/- for which the petitioner had given a cheque bearing No. 286694 of Rs. 8,00,000/- which has been encashed by the respondent No. 2. He also argued that a blank cheque of petitioner bearing No. 286695 of Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit was lost on 07.03.2025 for which the petitioner had given information to the SHO Gidhouri Tundra, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) and also given information to the Branch Manager, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Raipur Branch Tundra on 28.03.2025. He submitted that the respondent No. 2 has misused the said cheque mentioning the amount and making forged signature of the petitioner and filed the complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the JMFC Kasdol, the said complaint case is registered on 29.04.2025 and notice has been issued to the petitioner and after filing of the case u/s 138 NIA, respondent No. 2/complainant along with her