The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed the principle that courts must refrain from interfering in criminal investigations at an early stage, even when the petitioner claims to be a victim wrongfully arrayed as an accused. The judgment underscores the necessity of allowing investigative agencies to complete their probe before judicial review, preserving the integrity of the criminal justice process.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Bhola Prasad Kurrey, initially filed an FIR against Sanjit Agrawal, Sandeep Agrawal, Kanhaiyalal Agrawal, Divya Gupta, Yogesh Gupta, and Dev Kumar Kurrey, alleging that they operated a fraudulent investment scheme under the name "Subh Nivesh Stock Trading Company" at M.G. Road, Ambikapur. The petitioner claimed he was induced to invest Rs. 75,00,000 through social media propaganda promising returns up to ten times the principal amount within 40 days. After receiving only 10% of the promised returns, the accused absconded, their office was locked, and contact numbers were switched off. A post-dated cheque issued to the petitioner was dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
Key Facts
- The petitioner lodged the initial FIR on an unspecified date in 2024, reporting fraud under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005, and relevant provisions of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023
- Despite being the complainant, the petitioner was subsequently named as an accused in the same FIR
- The petitioner was arrested on 14.09.2025 and released on bail on 18.11.2025
- He had previously initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the main accused
- The petitioner approached the Superintendent of Police for registration of the FIR before it was filed
- No final police report has been submitted as of the date of the judgment
Procedural History
- 2024: FIR No. 715 of 2024 registered at P.S. Gandhi Nagar, Ambikapur
- 14.09.2025: Petitioner arrested
- 18.11.2025: Petitioner released on bail
- 2026: CRMP No. 823 of 2026 filed before the Chhattisgarh High Court seeking quashing of the FIR
- 17.02.2025: Similar petition filed by co-accused respondents No. 3 and 4 (CRMP No. 588 of 2025) dismissed by this Court
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner’s Position: The petitioner asserts he is a victim, not a perpetrator. He claims no material links him to the fraudulent scheme, and his inclusion as an accused is a grave error. He argues that continuing proceedings against him amounts to abuse of process and violates his fundamental rights.
Respondents’ Position: The State and co-accused contend that the investigation is ongoing and incomplete. They argue that the petitioner’s role cannot be determined until the final police report is filed. They rely on the earlier dismissal of a similar petition by the same court to argue against premature interference.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Production of all records relating to the FIR
- Quashing of FIR No. 715 of 2024 as it pertains to him
- Any other relief deemed fit in the interest of justice
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a court may quash an FIR under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 when the investigation is still ongoing and no final report has been submitted, particularly where the petitioner claims to be a victim erroneously made an accused.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the absence of any prima facie evidence linking him to the alleged offences renders his inclusion as an accused legally unsustainable. He cited Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to emphasize that arrest and prosecution must be based on credible material, not mere suspicion. He further submitted that the petitioner had already initiated civil remedies under Section 138 NI Act, demonstrating his status as a victim, not a conspirator.
For the Respondent/State
The State counsel contended that the investigation is at a critical stage and that the petitioner’s role remains under scrutiny. He relied on settled jurisprudence that courts should not prejudge the merits of an investigation. He cited the earlier dismissal of CRMP No. 588 of 2025 by the same court to argue that the petitioner’s claim lacks novelty and that interference at this stage would undermine the investigative process.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the inherent power to quash an FIR under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 is an extraordinary jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly. The Court emphasized that when an investigation is still in progress and the police report under Section 193(3) of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 173(2) CrPC) has not yet been filed, the court lacks sufficient material to assess the veracity of allegations against any accused.
"When the investigation is still pending and the police report has not yet been filed, this Court is not inclined to examine the merits of the allegations in detail or to record any finding which may prejudice either party."
The Court noted that the petitioner’s status as the original complainant does not automatically immunize him from scrutiny, but equally, his inclusion as an accused cannot be sustained without material evidence. The Court declined to speculate on the outcome of the investigation or to make findings that could influence the probe.
The Court also referenced its own prior decision in CRMP No. 588 of 2025, dismissing similar relief sought by co-accused, to underscore the need for consistency and to prevent forum shopping.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed without prejudice. The Court directed the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and submit the police report under Section 193(3) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the police report before the appropriate forum upon its filing. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Investigation Must Run Its Course
- Practitioners must advise clients that FIR quashing petitions filed during active investigation are unlikely to succeed unless the allegations are patently false or mala fide
- Courts will not entertain premature challenges to FIRs where the investigation is incomplete
- The burden remains on the petitioner to demonstrate that no offence is disclosed on the face of the complaint - a high threshold at this stage
Victim Status Does Not Confer Immunity
- Being the initial complainant does not preclude a person from being investigated as an accused
- Legal representatives must prepare for the possibility that victims may be scrutinized for potential complicity
- Evidence of prior civil remedies (e.g., NI Act proceedings) may support the claim of victimhood but cannot substitute for evidentiary proof in criminal proceedings
Procedural Discipline in Criminal Investigations
- Courts will enforce timelines for submission of police reports under Section 193(3) BNSS
- Failure to comply with court-ordered deadlines may lead to contempt proceedings
- Parties must await the final report before seeking judicial review of investigative conclusions
