Police Cannot Re-Register FIR on Same Allegations Without Fresh Material

Source: Chhattisgarh High Court 

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, in Monali Baghmare & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. (2026) quashed an FIR registered under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, holding that where police had initially treated a complaint as a non-cognizable case, subsequent registration of an FIR on identical allegations, absent any fresh material, lent support to the conclusion that a purely commercial dispute had been given a criminal colour. 

What was the Background of Monali Baghmare & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• The petitioners were alleged to have induced the complainant and his associates to deposit a total sum of Rs. 1,02,480/- on the assurance of appointment as Salesmen/Agents carrying a monthly salary of Rs. 22,000/-. 
• The complainant alleged that the promised benefits were never provided, giving rise to allegations of cheating. 
• On the complaint submitted on 18th September 2025, the police had initially treated the matter as a non-cognizable dispute and recorded proceedings under Section 155 CrPC (corresponding to Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), advising the complainant to approach the competent Court. 
• Within two days, and without any fresh material or change in circumstances, the police registered the impugned FIR on 20th September 2025 under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) BNS. 
• The petitioners approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, contending that the dispute was purely commercial in nature. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Nature of the Underlying Relationship: 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. These agreements governed the rights and obligations of the parties and contained no stipulation regarding payment of a monthly salary of Rs. 22,000/- or provision of food and accommodation, as alleged in the FIR. 
• On the Ingredients of Cheating: The Court held that the allegations essentially arose out of a commercial and contractual relationship, and that the material on record did not prima facie disclose any fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners at the inception of the transaction — which is the sine qua non for constituting the offence of cheating under Section 318(4) BNS. The Court remarked that mere non-fulfilment of a promise or breach of contractual terms, absent fraudulent intention from the very inception, cannot by itself attract criminal liability. 
• On the Change from Non-Cognizable to Cognizable Treatment: The Court observed that on the very same complaint, the police had first recorded proceedings under Section 155 CrPC, treating the matter as non-cognizable, but within two days registered the FIR on identical allegations without any fresh material being brought on record. The Court held that the record did not disclose any tangible material explaining such a change in the nature of the proceedings, and that this circumstance supported the petitioners' contention that the dispute primarily arose out of a business arrangement and had been given a criminal colour. 
• On Relief Granted: Holding that the essential ingredients of the alleged offence were not made out, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR. 

What is Cheating under Section 318 BNS? 

About: 

• Section 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 420 IPC read with Section 415 IPC) defines and penalises cheating. 
• Cheating requires deception of a person, dishonestly or fraudulently inducing that person to deliver property or to do/omit an act which they would not otherwise do, causing or likely to cause damage or harm. 
• A crucial ingredient is that the fraudulent or dishonest intention must exist at the inception of the transaction; a subsequent failure to honour a promise, without such intention at inception, amounts at best to a civil breach of contract, not a criminal offence. 

Section 318(4) BNS: 

• Deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or destruction of a valuable security, punishable with imprisonment up to seven years and fine — this is the aggravated form of cheating involving property. 

Section 3(5) BNS: 

• Corresponds to Section 34 IPC and deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, making each person liable as if the act were done by them alone. 

What is the Distinction Between Cognizable and Non-Cognizable Offences? 

• A cognizable offence is one in which a police officer may arrest without warrant and initiate investigation without prior permission of a Magistrate. 
• A non-cognizable offence is one in which police cannot arrest without a warrant or investigate without the Magistrate's permission; the informant must be referred to approach the competent Court, and the police record the matter under Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973).