1 / 4 2025:CGHC:2523 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 687 of 2019 1 - Ramawtar Gurudwan S/o Late Shri Vyasnarayan Gurudiwan Aged About 61 Years R/o Hardibazar, Police Station Hardibazar, Tehsil Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Shiv Kumar Rathore S/o Samaru Ram Rathore, Aged about not Known. 2 - Smt. Tarun Kati Rathore W/o Shiv Kumar Rathore, aged about not known, Office Address Branch Office No. 02, T. P. Nagar, R/o Bima Seva Kendra, College Chowk, Hardibazar, Tehsil Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 15/01/2025 1. The instant petition has been filed against the order dated 03/01/2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Korba, C.G. in Criminal Revision No.48/2018 whereby the revisional Court has affirmed the order dated 29/08/2018 passed by the JMFC, Pali, District Korba and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner for registration of FIR. 2. The brief facts of this case are that the petitioner filed an application before the JMFC, Pali, Korba for registration of FIR against ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.01.28 18:07:33 +0530 2 / 4 Respondents No.1 & 2 on the allegation that they have forged the cheque of the petitioner and withdrawn the amount of Rs.2.00 Lakhs from the petitioner’s account. Pursuant to the said application, the JMFC has called the report from the concerned police station and the police filed its report in which it was submitted that the petitioner and Respondent No.1 are known to each other prior to the incident and Respondent No.1 is a Postman and Insurance Agent and the transaction of money took place between them. The police further gave the report that the Petitioner had given two cheques to Respondent No.1 in presence of Bhagat Singh Bhanwar and Stayapal Rathore and the petitioner has not objected the same but the cheque bearing No.325121 was taken by Respondent No.1 without the knowledge of the petitioner. 3. Thereafter, the JMFC rejected the application filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and kept the matter for initial evidence on the basis of the application filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and after recording the evidence of both the parties heard the matter and thereafter on 29/08/2018 dismissed the said application. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the JMFC has wrongly given the finding that the matter is of civil nature and the Court has not considered the report given by the police in its true perspective. He would next contend that earlier also the respondent No.1 was held responsible for making forged signatures of some other persons and on account of that a Departmental Enquiry was also initiated against him and he was found guilty. He would next contend that the department has also not sent the signatures for handwriting experts. He would lastly 3 / 4 contend that in view of the facts & circumstances of the case, the both the Courts ought to have directed for registration of FIR against the respondents, therefore, the order of both the Courts below are liable to be set aside and the FIR be directed to be registered. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the pleadings and prayers made in the petition. 6. The record would show that the JMFC has initially rejected the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and on 29/08/2018 dismissed the application under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the said order, the revision was filed which too was dismissed. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, materials available on record, also considering the fact that both the Courts below have observed that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for registering the complaint against the respondents and also considering the fact that the nature of dispute apparently reflects more of civil nature. 8. It is a settled position that revisional jurisdiction is not to be exercised lightly but it should be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice required interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. In this case, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality and there is no gross negligence in passing the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that both the Courts below have not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error 4 / 4 warranting interference by this Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 9. Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of merit is liable and is hereby dismissed. Consequently, all the pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu