Suraj Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Sinha, CJ

Heard Mr.Ravi Bhagat, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.Saurabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking following relief(s): -

"It is therefore, most humbly prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this Petition and kindly 'be pleased to Quash the 'F.I.R. (with respect to petitioners) Dated 16/09/2025 (Annexure P/2) by Police Station Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, at crime no. 424/2025 registered for commission of offence u/s 317(2) 317(4), 317(5), 111, and 3(5) of B.N.S.', and also to quash the 'Chargesheet filed dated 28/12/2025 (Annexure P/3) with respect to petitioners at Case no. 382/2025 before Learned J.M.F.C.-Raipur dated 28/12/2025, for Commission of offence committed under section 317 (2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, and 3(5) of B.N.S. and further to set aside the, 'First order taking cognizance dated 31/12/2025 in Criminal Case no. 56620/2025 (Annexure P/1) against the petitioners for offence committed under section 317 (2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, and 3(5) of B.N.S., and same is pending before Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh'. Further to pass any other order as per facts and circumstance of the case."

The facts of the case are that the petitioners, being undergraduates from economically weaker backgrounds, took up part-time employment after responding to a recruitment poster for a matrimonial service operated under the names "Jeewan Jodi Matrimonial" and "Royal Rishtey.com." They were engaged by one Bhaskar, who introduced himself as a manager, and were assigned the limited role of uploading posts on social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram. They were paid a monthly salary of approximately ₹8,000 and were provided devices for this purpose. The petitioners merely uploaded content as instructed and had no role in handling calls or financial transactions, which were exclusively managed by the main accused, Sahil Kumar Kaushik.

An FIR was registered at Police Station Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Raipur, alleging that fake matrimonial profiles were created to defraud individuals. During investigation, it was revealed that multiple bank accounts linked to Sahil Kumar Kaushik were used to collect money. The petitioners were implicated on the allegation that they assisted in uploading such profiles.

The petitioners were arrested in October 2025, and a charge sheet was subsequently filed. They were later granted bail by this Court. The Investigating Officer, in an affidavit, alleged that the petitioners were involved in creating and uploading fake profiles; however, no incriminating material such as mobile phones or electronic devices was seized from their possession.

It is the case of the petitioners that they were merely salaried employees with no knowledge of the alleged fraudulent activities, and have been falsely implicated. The trial is currently pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, where some prosecution witnesses have already been examined. Hence, this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is sufficient material on record to demonstrate that the petitioners were not involved in the alleged offence in Crime No. 424/2025 and, in fact, are victims rather than perpetrators. It was contended that the police, without proper verification of facts, have mechanically implicated the petitioners who were merely employees/wagers and have unjustly registered a counter FIR against them. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners had no active role in the alleged crime, as they neither communicated with any complainant nor handled any transactions. The mobile number displayed in the alleged advertisements was exclusively operated by the main accused, Sahil Kumar Kaushik, who alone interacted with customers. The petitioners, therefore, have been falsely implicated without any substantive material. It was also argued that the petitioners are young undergraduate students pursuing their studies and have been unnecessarily dragged into criminal proceedings. The present case, it was submitted, falls within the settled parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for quashing of proceedings, particularly to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. Reliance was placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala, (2008) 3 SCC 542, Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293, and Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (SLP (Crl.) No. 4326/2018, decided on 26.11.2024), to contend that where the allegations are inherently improbable and the material on record exonerates the accused, the FIR and consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings be quashed in the interest of justice.

Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No.1/State opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the FIR discloses prima facie cognizable offences. As such, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition.

This Court is guided by the settled principles governing inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS). Interference at the stage of FIR or after filing of charge-sheet is warranted only where: (a) the allegations do not disclose any offence even if taken at face value; or (b) the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides or are maliciously instituted [See State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335].

As per the FIR lodged at Police Station Deendayal Upadhyay (D.D. Nagar), District Raipur, the complainant submitted a written report alleging that unknown persons created accounts on social media platforms (Facebook/Instagram/YouTube) under the names "Jeewan Jodi Matrimonial" and "Royal Rishtey.com" in the names of Vinita Manikpuri and Devkinandan Kaushik. It is alleged that they posted photographs of girls along with mobile numbers and persuaded various persons to deposit money. As further stated in the FIR, a total of 79 bank accounts operated by Sahil Kumar Kaushik with HDFC Bank, Sundar Nagar Branch, were used to collect an amount of ₹17,97,790/- in total.

Upon consideration of the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the allegations made in the FIR, when taken at their face value, do disclose the commission of cognizable offences. The material collected during investigation, including the allegation that the petitioners were engaged in uploading and managing content relating to the matrimonial platforms through which the alleged fraud was carried out, cannot be said to be wholly improbable or lacking in substance at this stage.

The contention of the petitioners that they were merely employees acting on instructions and had no knowledge of the alleged fraudulent activities involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS). The defence sought to be raised by the petitioners requires appreciation of evidence and can be more appropriately examined during trial.

At this stage, it cannot be held that the allegations do not constitute any offence or that the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The FIR and the charge sheet prima facie disclose the involvement of the petitioners, and therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings.

As such, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners is not helpful to the petitioners and are distinguishable to the facts of the present case.

In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2020) 10 SCC 180, the Supreme Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit.

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.

Having perused the contents of the FIR, this Court is of the considered opinion that, prima facie, the allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. Therefore, it cannot be said that no offence is made out warranting interference at this stage. The present petition does not fall within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing of the FIR and charge-sheet.

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed