GOPAL AGRAWAL vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010292752022 2026:CGHC:38986-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
BABLU
RAJENDRA
BHANARKAR
Digitally signed by
BABLU RAJENDRA
BHANARKAR
Date: 2026.09.05
10:27:39 +0530
WA No. 529 of 2022
1 - Gopal Agrawal S/o Shyam Lal Agrawal Aged About 46 Years R/o
Village Dhurkot, P.O. Dhurkot, P.S. And Tehsil - Dabhra,, District :
Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
2 - Smt. Poonam Agrawal W/o Gopal Agrawal Aged About 41 Years
R/o Village Dhurkot, P.O. Dhurkot, P.S. And Tehsil - Dabhra,, District :
Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Home Affairs (Police), Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Superintendent Of Police Janjgir - Champa, District : Janjgir-
Champa, Chhattisgarh
3 - Station House Officer Police Station Dabhra, District : Janjgir-
Champa, Chhattisgarh
4 - Shashi Bhushan Singh S/o Chandrama Singh Posted As Branch
Manager Of Geo Chem Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. 12/b, M.P. Nagar, Zone -
Ii, Behind Pragati Petrol Pump, Bhopal, Revenue And Civil District -
Bhopal (Complainant), Madhya Pradesh
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate.
For Respondent
: Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate.
Nos. 1 to 3.

2
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble S hri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judge ,
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
03.09.2026
1. Heard Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel for the appellants. Also
heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate
appearing for respondents.
2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 07.09.2021
(Gopal Agrawal and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and
others) passed by the learned Single Judge in WPCR No. 290
of 2018, whereby, the writ petition filed by appellants herein was
dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
3. Brief facts of the case according to the appellants are that
complainant/respondent No. 4, Shashi Bhushan Singh, Manager
of Geo Chem Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal, lodged FIR No. 334/2016 on
26.10.2016 at Police Station Dhabhra, District Janjgir-Champa,
against the appellants and other co-accused persons for the
offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read
with Section 34 of the IPC. It is alleged that the appellants, in
connivance with the borrower and the Surveyor of Geo Chem
Pvt. Ltd., submitted forged storage receipts showing the quantity
and quality of rice stored in the godown, on the basis of which
commodity loans were availed from the banks. Subsequently,

3
when the borrowers failed to repay the loans, the banks initiated
recovery proceedings and directed verification of the stock,
whereupon it was found that the actual quantity and quality of
rice stored in the godown were inferior to and less than that
represented in the storage receipts. The appellant No. 1 had
availed a commodity loan of Rs.45 lakhs from IDBI Bank,
Raigarh, against 138.94 metric tons of Jawaphool rice, whereas
appellant No. 2 had availed a commodity loan of Rs.50 lakhs
from HDFC Bank against 52.50 metric tons of Jawaphool rice
and 83.65 metric tons of HMT rice. The said rice was allegedly
stored in a godown hired by the respective banks through Geo
Chem Pvt. Ltd., an authorized agency. Due to default in
repayment, the banks initiated proceedings under the
Secularization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, before the Debts
Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, which are stated to be pending.
During the pendency of the said proceedings, the aforesaid FIR
came to be registered against the appellants. Being aggrieved
by the same, the appellant filed WPCR No.290 of 2018,
whereby, the petition filed by the appellants herein / writ
petitioners was dismissed vide order dated 07.09.2021. Hence,
this writ appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the commodity
loans were sanctioned by the respective banks only after

4
verification of the quality and quantity of the hypothecated rice by
the bank officials and the authorized agency, Geo Chem Pvt. Ltd.
Therefore, the alleged shortage or variation in the stock cannot,
by itself, constitute an offence of cheating or forgery against the
appellants, particularly when the hypothecated rice was
subsequently sold by the bank officials towards recovery of the
loan amount. He further submits that the banks had appointed
Geo Chem Pvt. Ltd. for supervision and custody of the
commodity, and therefore, if there was any shortage,
misappropriation or variation in the quality and quantity of the
rice, the role of the concerned bank/Geo Chem officials ought to
have been examined. The appellants' employees had also
lodged a complaint alleging that the bank officials forcibly
entered the premises and lifted the rice and paddy without
following due process of law. He also submits that they had
themselves issued notices and representations to the bank
officials alleging criminal breach of trust, cheating and forgery in
relation to the hypothecated commodities. The bank had sold the
entire hypothecated stock and realized the loan amount, which
was also communicated by the bank to the S.D.O., Dabhra. He
later submits that the FIR was registered on the basis of vague
and indiscriminate allegations and without there being any
material prima facie establishing the involvement of the
appellants in cheating or forgery. According to the appellants, the
investigation was initiated merely on the basis of a fishing and

5
roving enquiry and was influenced by respondent No. 4, an
influential person, thereby amounting to abuse of the process of
law and colorable exercise of power by the police authorities.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 AIR (SC) 604 , the
appellants contend that where the allegations in the FIR, even if
taken at their face value, do not constitute the alleged offences,
or where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide or instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court can
exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the
process of law. On these grounds, the appellants seek quashing
of the FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to
3/State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the appellants and submits that the learned Single Judge
after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly
dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants
herein, in which no interference is called for.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned order and other documents appended with writ
appeal.
8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned
Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition holding that the

6
allegations contained in the FIR disclose disputed questions of
fact concerning the quality and quantity of rice allegedly stored in
the godown, the correctness of the Storage Receipt (SR) report,
the nature and quality of the rice subsequently auctioned by the
bank, and the alleged manipulation or shortage of the
hypothecated stock. The learned Single Judge has further held
that the documents relied upon by the appellants, including the
panchnama and the document dated 20.03.2016, are matters of
evidence and their correctness, genuineness and evidentiary
value cannot be examined in exercise of writ jurisdiction,
particularly when such issues require appreciation of evidence
and are to be adjudicated during trial. The learned Single Judge,
placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kunwar Singh, decided
on 30.07.2021 in CRA No.709 of 2021 , Kaptan Singh v. State
of Uttar Pradesh, decided on 13.08.2021 in CRA No.787 of
2021, Priti Saraf v. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in AIR 2021
SC 1531, State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, reported in
(2004) 6 SCC 522 and Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor ,
reported in (2013) 3 SCC 330, has held that the High Court,
while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., cannot conduct a roving
enquiry into disputed facts, appreciate evidence as a trial Court
or determine the truthfulness of the allegations at the threshold.
The learned Single Judge has also distinguished the judgment

7
relied upon by the appellants in Virupaksha v. State of
Karnataka , reported in (2020) 4 SCC 440, observing that the
facts of the said case were distinguishable from the present
case, as in the present matter there are specific allegations that
the appellants obtained credit facilities on the basis of the
alleged discrepancy between the stock actually available in the
godown and the stock reflected in the Storage Receipt.
Consequently, the learned Single Judge concluded that the FIR
prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offences and
that the disputed questions relating to the quality, quantity and
custody of the hypothecated rice, the alleged manipulation of the
Storage Receipts and the respective roles of the appellants and
the bank/Geo Chem officials require examination on the basis of
the material collected during investigation and evidence to be
adduced at trial. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge declined
to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, dismissed
the writ petition, vacated the interim relief granted on 02.07.2018
and directed the learned trial Court to proceed with and decide
the trial expeditiously, uninfluenced by the observations made in
the impugned order.
9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel
for the parties, perused the documents appended with writ
petition as also with writ appeal and also considering the findings
recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ

8
petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants herein, we are of
the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not
committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the
impugned order warranting interference by this Court.
10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be
and is hereby dismissed . No cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/-
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha )
Judge Chief Justice
Bablu