The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that prolonged investigation without filing of a charge-sheet, even when spanning over three years, does not by itself justify quashing of an FIR under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Court emphasized that judicial interference at the investigation stage must be exceptional and confined to cases of manifest abuse or where no offence is disclosed.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Jai Kumar Dewangan and Smt. Dimple Dewangan, seek quashing of FIR No. 322 of 2022 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint, filed by a minor, alleges that Jai Kumar Dewangan, along with his cousin Vishnu Dewangan, gained access to the complainant’s mother’s ATM card during her medical treatment at CMC Vellore and illegally withdrew Rs. 6,96,936/- between 16.12.2016 and 19.08.2020. The FIR was registered on 28.05.2022, nearly two years after the last alleged transaction.
Key Facts
- The complainant was a minor during the alleged transactions (2016 - 2020)
- The petitioners claim they managed financial affairs of the complainant’s family with full consent for medical and domestic purposes
- No charge-sheet has been filed despite over three years and nine months since FIR registration
- The petitioners assert the transactions were consensual and civil in nature, later criminalized due to ulterior motives
- The complainant’s parents allegedly did not raise objections during the period of transactions
- The petitioners claim they were unaware of the FIR until property inquiries began
Procedural History
- 16.12.2016 to 19.08.2020: Alleged financial transactions occurred
- 28.05.2022: FIR No. 322 of 2022 registered at PS City Kotwali, Mungeli
- 23.03.2026: Writ petition filed before the Chhattisgarh High Court seeking quashing of FIR and acquittal on grounds of delay
- No charge-sheet filed as of date of hearing
- No prior judicial order or interim relief sought or granted in lower courts
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners’ Contentions:
- FIR is baseless, vague, and lacks specific allegations of dishonest intent
- Delay in investigation (over 3 years) violates statutory timelines and prejudices the accused
- Transactions were consensual and civil in nature
- Complaint filed by minor without understanding, under influence
- No prima facie case of cheating under Section 420 IPC
Respondents’ Contentions:
- FIR discloses a cognizable offence under Sections 420 and 34 IPC
- Investigation is ongoing and requires collection of financial records, bank statements, and witness testimonies
- Delay in filing FIR is a matter of evidence, not ground for quashing at this stage
- Court must not prejudge facts or evidence during investigation
Relief Sought
- Quashing of FIR No. 322 of 2022 under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023
- Acquittal of petitioners on grounds of inordinate delay
- Termination of all investigation proceedings
- Any other relief deemed just
The Legal Issue
Can an FIR be quashed solely on the ground of inordinate delay in investigation and non-filing of a charge-sheet, when the allegations prima facie disclose a cognizable offence under Section 420 IPC?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on the principle that prolonged investigation without conclusion amounts to denial of fair trial and violates Article 21. They cited State of Haryana v. Bhagirath and Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana to argue that delay beyond reasonable time renders proceedings abusive. They contended that the absence of specific allegations of dishonest intent and the consensual nature of transactions negate the essential ingredients of cheating under Section 420 IPC. They further argued that the complainant’s minority and lack of awareness at the time of transactions render the complaint inherently unreliable.
For the Respondent
The State countered that the allegations, if proven, constitute a cognizable offence. The delay in filing the FIR and the investigation are factual matters to be determined during trial, not at the quashing stage. The Government Advocate emphasized that the investigation is still in progress, requiring forensic analysis of bank records and cross-examination of witnesses. The Court, they argued, must not substitute its opinion for that of the investigating agency at this stage.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the petitioners’ grievance regarding the prolonged pendency of investigation but reiterated the settled legal position that quashing of an FIR is an extraordinary remedy, to be invoked only where the allegations on their face do not disclose any offence or where the proceedings are an abuse of process.
"The inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is not a substitute for trial, nor is it a forum to evaluate the credibility of witnesses or the merits of the case at the investigation stage."
The Court noted that the allegations, however contested, prima facie fall within the ambit of Section 420 IPC, which requires proof of dishonest intention and inducement to deliver property. The Court declined to assess the veracity of the claim that transactions were consensual, as this involves evidentiary evaluation beyond the scope of quashing proceedings.
The Court further observed that while delay in investigation is a serious concern, it does not ipso facto vitiate the FIR. The remedy lies in compelling expeditious completion of investigation, not in termination of proceedings. The Court cited State of Haryana v. Bhagirath to affirm that courts may direct completion of investigation within a fixed time but cannot quash merely on account of delay.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court directed the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and file the police report under Section 193(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 173(2) CrPC) within four weeks from receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioners are at liberty to challenge the police report before the competent court if aggrieved. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Delay Alone Is Not Ground for Quashing
- Practitioners must not rely solely on delay in investigation to seek FIR quashing
- Courts will not entertain quashing petitions merely because charge-sheet is delayed, if the FIR discloses a cognizable offence
- The burden remains on the accused to show mala fide or complete absence of offence
Investigation Timelines Are Enforceable
- Courts may impose strict deadlines for completion of investigation in cases of undue delay
- Failure to comply may lead to contempt proceedings or judicial criticism of the investigating agency
- Petitioners should seek direction for expeditious investigation rather than outright quashing
Civil Disputes Cannot Be Criminalized Without Prima Facie Dishonesty
- Consensual financial arrangements, even if later disputed, do not automatically attract Section 420 IPC
- Allegations must specifically plead dishonest intention at the time of inducement
- Courts will scrutinize whether the complaint is a tool for coercion or genuine criminal grievance
