Pending civil or negotiable instrument proceedings do not bar criminal investigation into prima facie cognizable offences.

The petitioner, a practicing advocate, sought to quash FIR No. 0030/2016 registered at Police Station Gol Bazar, Raipur, for offenses under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC.

The complainant alleged that the petitioner misrepresented himself as a 'Patwari' (revenue official) and prepared forged documents.

The petitioner contended that he was engaged solely in a professional capacity as an advocate in revenue proceedings and that his name does not appear as a government official in any records.

He further argued that the financial disputes involved cheques issued by a co-accused, which are already the subject of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, making the matter purely civil and monetary.

The State countered that the FIR discloses cognizable offenses and that the routing of funds through the petitioner’s account necessitates a full investigation.

1. Whether the FIR should be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS on the grounds that the allegations arise from a civil/monetary dispute and the petitioner acted in a professional capacity?

2. Whether the pendency of Section 138 NI Act proceedings or the civil nature of a dispute bars a criminal investigation into allegations of fraud and forgery?

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which preserves the High Court's inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of law.

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) 1 SCC 335, which establishes that an FIR should not be quashed if it prima facie discloses cognizable offenses and that the existence of civil or alternative remedies (such as Section 138 of the NI Act) does not preclude criminal investigation into distinct criminal acts.

The Court observed that the allegations in the FIR, specifically regarding the petitioner's role in preparing fraudulent documents and being misrepresented as a government official, prima facie constitute cognizable offenses under the IPC.

The Court reasoned that the petitioner’s defense—that he acted only as an advocate and that funds routed through his account were immediately transferred—are matters of fact that require a detailed investigation and cannot be adjudicated in a quashing petition.

Following the Bhajan Lal doctrine, the Court held that it is inappropriate to examine the veracity of allegations or the merits of the case at the investigative stage.

It further clarified that concurrent civil or NI Act proceedings do not serve as a legal bar to investigating criminal charges of conspiracy and forgery.

It held that the High Court would not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to pre-empt an investigation where cognizable offenses are disclosed.

The Court ordered the investigation to proceed unhindered.