Chatrasaal Katiyar vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Chatrasaal Katiyar, owner of a stationary shop, is challenging an FIR registered against him. The FIR was lodged by respondent no. 2 alleging she received fraud calls, threats of viral obscene content, and extortion of Rs. 1,01,500/- via Gpay QR code. The complainant noted the account holder name as Yashpal upon scanning the QR code. The petitioner claims a regular customer, using the name Yashpal, purchased items from his shop and paid via Gpay QR code, with Rs. 70,000/- transferred to the petitioner's account. The petitioner asserts he has no connection to the fraudulent phone numbers and has been implicated with mala fide intentions and suspicion, lacking proof. The State argues the alleged amount was transferred to the petitioner's bank account via his shop's QR code and questions the sanctity of the handwritten bill submitted by the petitioner due to the absence of a GST number.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's plea regarding bonafide transactions and the authenticity of the handwritten bill, which lacked a GST number, could not be examined at the stage of a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. The Court found that, as per the complaint, when the complainant scanned the QR code for payment related to extortion, the account holder 'Yashpal' was shown. Furthermore, transactions related to the alleged amount took place in the name of Yashpal from the petitioner's shop, and the said amount was transferred via QR code to the petitioner's bank account. The Court concluded that these matters could only be considered during the trial. Therefore, the Court found no good ground to allow the petition, as prima facie, the petitioner appeared to be involved in the commission of the offense. The petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the First Information Report (FIR) No. 143/2025, lodged under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 308(2) & 308(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 66(D) & 67(a) of the Information Technology Act, against the petitioner, is liable to be quashed. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of the aforementioned penal provisions and the evidence presented at the FIR stage. Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that the FIR is based on suspicion and mala fide intentions, as the petitioner has no connection to the fraudulent phone numbers. The transactions in the petitioner's account were by a regular customer using the name Yashpal, who paid via QR code for stationary purchases. The petitioner relied on the fact that the complainant identified the account holder as Yashpal, not the petitioner. State: Contended that the alleged amount was transferred to the petitioner's bank account through his shop's QR code. The State questioned the authenticity of the handwritten bill presented by the petitioner, noting the absence of a GST number, and argued that the validity of the bill and the plea of bonafide transaction cannot be examined at this stage under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.