Police Cannot Register FIR On Same Allegations If They Initially Treated Complaint As 'Non-Cognizable': Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that where the police initially treated a complaint as a non-cognizable dispute, registering an FIR on the very same allegations without any fresh material indicates that the dispute has been given a criminal colour. The Court further observed that non-fulfilment of a promise or breach of contractual terms cannot attract criminal liability in the absence...
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that where the police initially treated a complaint as a non-cognizable dispute, registering an FIR on the very same allegations without any fresh material indicates that the dispute has been given a criminal colour. The Court further observed that non-fulfilment of a promise or breach of contractual terms cannot attract criminal liability in the absence of fraudulent intention.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal was hearing a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It was alleged that the petitioners induced the complainant and his associates to deposit a total sum of Rs.1,02,480/- on the assurance of appointment as Salesmen/Agents with a monthly salary of Rs.22,000/-. However, the promised benefits were not provided, giving rise to an allegation of cheating.
The petitioners contended that on the same complaint submitted on September 18, 2025, the police had initially treated the matter as a non-cognizable case and recorded proceedings under Section 155 CrPC (Section 174 BNSS), advising the complainant to approach the competent Court. However, within two days and without any fresh material or change in circumstances, the police registered the impugned FIR on September 20, 2025.
The Court noted that the complainant and other persons had voluntarily joined the business as Independent Business Owners by executing Direct Seller Agreements on stamp paper. The agreements specifically governed the rights and obligations of the parties and did not contain any stipulation regarding payment of a monthly salary of Rs.22,000/- or provision of food and accommodation, as alleged in the FIR.
The Court further found that the allegations in the FIR essentially arose out of a commercial and contractual relationship. It observed that the material on record did not prima facie indicate that the petitioners had any fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction, which was the sine qua non for constituting the offence of cheating under Section 318(4) BNS.
“Mere non-fulfilment of a promise or breach of contractual terms, in the absence of fraudulent intention from the very inception, cannot by itself attract criminal liability,” the Court remarked.
The Court further noted that, on the same complaint submitted on September 18, 2025, the police had initially recorded proceedings under Section 155 CrPC, treating the matter as a non-cognizable dispute. However, within two days, on the very same allegations and without any fresh material being brought on record, the impugned FIR came to be registered treating the matter as a cognizable offence. Hence, the Court held:
“The record does not disclose any tangible material explaining such a change in the nature of the proceedings. This circumstance lends support to the contention of the petitioners that the dispute primarily arises out of a business arrangement and has been given a criminal colour.”
The Court held that the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are not made out. The Court accordingly allowed the petition and quashed the FIR.
Case Title: Monali Baghmare & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. [CRMP No. 100 of 2026]