Neeraj Pokhariya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 April, 2025

Chattisgarh High Court

Neeraj Pokhariya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 April, 2025

                                                      1/4




                         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MANPREET
KAUR

Digitally signed
                                          CRMP No. 1430 of 2025
by MANPREET
KAUR
Date: 2025.04.30
10:43:14 +0530              Neeraj Pokhariya Versus State Of Chhattisgarh
                                                 Order Sheet


                   29.04.2025         Heard Ms. Madhunisha Singh, learned counsel for

                                the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma,

                                learned Panel Lawyer for respondents No. 1 / State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the nature of allegations made in the FIR No. 31 of 2023

dated 25.01.2023 and the consequent charge-sheet No.

194/2023, do not disclose any ingredients of the offences

under Sections 420 and 34 IPC. The dispute, at its core,

is purely civil in nature arising out of dissatisfaction with

the quality of goods supplied under a distribution

agreement and does not involve any dishonest or

fraudulent inducement at inception. The complaint lacks

any prima facie material to show that the petitioners had

any dishonest intention from the beginning, which is a
2/4

sine qua non for invoking Section 420 IPC. The

complainant was a customer/distributor who entered into

a voluntary business arrangement with Rise Vision

Fashion Company. Dissatisfaction with quality of goods

at best raises a consumer or contractual issue, not a

criminal one. The petitioners are mere employees of the

said firm, acting under the directions of the directors and

did not personally gain or induce any deposit. The

agreements and business communications were made

on behalf of the firm, in the normal course of business.

The petitioners were discharged vide order dated

13.11.2024 by the Learned Special Judge, CGPDI Act,

Rajnandgaon, from charges under Sections 6(5) and 10

of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act,

2005, thereby recognizing that the petitioners and the

company were not engaged in any investment or deposit

scheme but rather in the marketing and sale of

garments. The dispute, as alleged, being with respect to

poor quality of goods or unmet expectations from a

marketing scheme, would squarely fall within the purview

of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and not under the
3/4

criminal law. Reliance is placed on the judgment in

Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar ((2009) 8 SCC 751]

whereby, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that civil disputes

cannot be criminalized in the absence of dishonest

intention. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Joseph

Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat [(2011) 7 SCC 59] and

Randheer Singh v. State of U.P. [(2021) 14 SCC 626]

held that criminal prosecution should not be permitted to

be used as a tool of harassment in purely civil matters.

In view of the above, issue notice to the

respondent No.2 by ordinary post as well as registered

post.

Learned State counsel appears and accepts notice

on behalf of respondents No.1, therefore, issuance of

notice to it, is dispensed with.

Process Fee be paid within a week only for

respondents No.2.

Notice be made returnable in four weeks.

Two weeks’ time is granted to the learned State

counsel as well as respondents No.2 to file their reply-

affidavit and thereafter, two weeks’ time is granted to the
4/4

learned counsel for the petitioners to file rejoinder

affidavit.

List the matter thereafter.

Till then, further proceedings against the

petitioners, namely, Neeraj Pokhariya, Akash

Gawade, Yamini Sahare, Vishal Dhone and Pradeep

Giri alias Kuldeep in RCC No. 9731 of 2024 in

pursuance to the charge-sheet bearing Final Report

No.194/2023 against FIR bearing Crime No. 31 of

2023 dated 25.01.2023 for offence under Sections

420, 34 of the IPC, shall remain stayed, subject to the

condition that the petitioners shall co-operate in the

investigation.

                            Sd/-                            Sd/-

                (Arvind Kumar Verma)               (Ramesh Sinha)
                      Judge                          Chief Justice




Manpreet