Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1.

BMROIRJMLEOHAN DsBMD21+ i 01 Ri a g 0 O g 2:t n 5 I 5 i eRJ 6 t 3 e 8 M : a . Ld 00: l 4 EO l 3 by 2 H . y 2 A 0 N

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

“I. First Information Report (FIR) No. 178 of 2025 dated 28.10.2025 registered at Police Station Sargaon, District Mungeli (C.G.);

II. Consequent charge-sheet bearing No. 168 of 2025 dated 06.10.2025 emanating from the aforesaid FIR filed for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) BNS;

III. The order dated 15.12.2025, taking cognizance of the aforesaid charge-sheet and the charge framed on 20.01.2026 by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh;

IV. The consequent orders and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5430 of 2025, parties being ‘State of Chhattisgarh vs. Anil Dubey’, pending before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the recorded owner of lands bearing Khasra No. 89/14, admeasuring 2.35 acres (approximately 0.953 hectare), and Khasra No. 86/43, admeasuring 49 dismal (approximately 0.198 hectare), situated at Village Thelki, P.H. No. 39, R.I.C. Pathariya, Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.). It is submitted that respondent No. 2/complainant, Manoj Kumar Sharma, lodged a complaint alleging that he had approached the petitioner for purchase of the said lands for a total consideration of Rs. 22,00,000/-. It is further submitted that three agreements dated 16.06.2022, 16.05.2023 and 28.01.2025 were executed between the parties, under which certain amounts were allegedly paid partly through cheques and partly in cash.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the dispute is purely civil in nature. It is argued that the petitioner had obtained a Kisan Credit Card (KCC) loan by mortgaging the land, and the complainant has falsely alleged concealment of such fact. It is further contended that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs. 5,30,000/- from the complainant and had repaid an amount of Rs. 6,39,000/- through banking channels. It is also submitted that the complainant misused blank stamp papers and fabricated agreements to falsely project the transaction as one of sale. He further submitted that an earlier complaint filed by the complainant was enquired into by Police Station Sargaon, and as per enquiry report dated 13.05.2025, no cognizable offence was found to be made out. According to the petitioner, suppression of this fact and the subsequent registration of FIR No. 178 of 2025 dated 28.10.2025 amounts to abuse of the process of law.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that despite the aforesaid facts, a charge-sheet dated 06.12.2025 has been filed under Section 318(4) of the BNS, and cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mungeli. It is contended that the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence alleged, particularly the requirement of dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. Reliance has been placed upon Radheyshyam and others vs. State of Rajasthan & another, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2311; Vinod Natesan v. State of Kerala, reported in (2019) 2 SCC 401; and Sachin Garg v. State of U.P., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 82.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the investigation has been conducted in accordance with law and sufficient material has been collected during investigation, including statements of witnesses and documentary evidence, on the basis of which the charge-sheet has been filed. It is contended that at this stage, the Court cannot appreciate