Quashing of Charge-Sheet Refused Where Prima Facie Case of Serious Financial Fraud is Disclosed

The petitioner sought to quash a charge-sheet dated 16.12.2025 and a cognizance order in Criminal Case No. 2359/2025 arising from Crime No. 197/2025

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with co-accused persons, induced investors under the banner of "CBULLS Global Solution Trading Company" by promising 1% daily returns and doubling investments within 10 months

The complainant alleged he invested Rs. 1.80 Crores which was never returned

The petitioner was arrested on 18.10.2025 and later granted bail on 14.01.2026

The petitioner contended he was a victim himself, not a Director, and that the Respondent No. 2 (complainant) was actually a Director of the company using the FIR as an arm-twisting measure

1. Whether the charge-sheet and the order taking cognizance dated 16.12.2025 constitute an abuse of the process of law warranting quashing under inherent powers

2. Whether a prima facie case exists against the petitioner based on the materials collected during the investigation

The court applied Sections 420 (Cheating), 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy), and 34 (Common Intention) of the Indian Penal Code

Procedurally, the court looked at Section 173(8) of the CrPC regarding ongoing investigations against absconding accused

The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction (analogous to Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS) to determine if the proceedings were "wholly arbitrary or illegal"

It further maintained the principle of judicial consistency by referencing a prior dismissal of a similar petition filed by a co-accused in Harisharan Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh (CRMP No. 3630/2025)

The Court examined the investigation materials, including written complaints, statements of victims, and seized items such as financial records, electronic devices, and memorandum statements

It noted that the allegations involved a well-planned, large-scale financial conspiracy affecting numerous investors beyond just the primary complainant

The Court rejected the petitioner’s defense that he was a victim or a non-director, holding that such factual disputes are matters for trial rather than quashing proceedings

The Court emphasized that since a prima facie case was established by the police and cognizance had already been taken, it would be improper to interfere at the threshold stage

Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and refused to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. The petition was dismissed