2026:CGHC:11365-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 653 of 2026 Swati Gopal @ Singhal W/o Arpit Singhal Aged About 34 Years R/o R-

3/77 Sector -3, Raj Nagar Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh - 201002 ... Petitioner(s)

versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh And Ors Through- Station House Officer, Police Station, Sarkanda, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, 2. Mr. Shilpi Shrivastava D/o Late Sh. K.K. Srivastava R/o Om Niwas Behind Manorma Dairy Near Jora Talab Gorapara Sarkanda District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Compalinant)

...Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Shivesh Kaushik, Advocate through VC along with Mr. Sanjay Kumar Soni, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate.

Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN BRIJMOHAN MORLE MORLE Date:

2026.03.10 +0530 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

10.03.2026

1. Heard Mr. Shivesh Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner through video conferencing along with Mr. Sanjay Kumar Soni, learned counsel. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1.

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

“(a) Quash FIR No. 561 of 2025 dated 18.04.2025 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, under Sections 420, 406, 384, 120-B and 34 of the IPC, and all consequential proceedings, if any, therefrom, insofar as they relate to the petitioner; (b) Stay further investigation and all coercive steps against the petitioner during the pendency of the present petition; and (c) Pass any other order(s) deemed fit in the interest of justice.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant (respondent No. 2) was married to the petitioner’s relative (first cousin, the complainant’s former husband). It is submitted that multiple litigations had arisen between the complainant and her husband and his family members, and several of those proceedings were being heard by the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Delhi. This background, according to the petitioner, has already been noticed by this Hon’ble Court while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner vide order dated 16.10.2025. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution story in the impugned FIR broadly alleges that the complainant and/or her mother advanced substantial sums of money to the petitioner and co-accused Amit Dewan and that, upon disputes arising between the parties, cheques were issued and later dishonoured, following which allegations of coercion, extortion and related offences were made, culminating in registration of the present FIR.

4. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the narrative set out in the FIR is self-contradictory, inherently improbable and motivated by matrimonial hostility. According to the petitioner, the allegations seek to give a criminal colour to what is essentially a monetary dispute arising out of alleged financial transactions. Learned counsel submits that prior to registration of the impugned FIR, the complainant had consciously elected to pursue civil and statutory remedies in relation to the same alleged transaction by issuing legal notices dated 26.10.2024 and 28.01.2025 alleging cheque dishonour and seeking recovery of the amount. It is further submitted that another legal notice dated 30.04.2025 was issued demanding repayment of the alleged amount, thereby demonstrating that the dispute was treated by the complainant herself as a civil monetary dispute.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a central assertion in the FIR is that the complainant and/or her mother were capable of advancing a sum of about Rs. 1 crore to the petitioner. This assertion, according to the petitioner, is inherently doubtful in view of the complainant’s earlier judicial conduct. It is contended that in earlier proceedings th