1 2025:CGHC:961 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1085 of 2018 1. Rajiv Mundra S/o Shri Kailash Nath Mundra Aged About 38 Years Presently R/o Mundra Bhawan, Beside Gate No. 2 Ashoka Ratan, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Through In Impugned Order Mentioned As R/o Ashoka Tower, Shankarnagar, Square, Police Station Civil Line, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Manish Makhija S/o Laxman Das Makhija Aged About 41 Years R/o Kelkar Para, ( Through In Impugned Order Mentioned Naharpara ) Near Shiv Mandir Police Station Ganj Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Atul Deshpande S/o Shri Prakash Deshpande Aged About 41 Years R/o House No. B-401, Subhash Chand Ward No. 29, V-3 Dharohar, Shriram Nagar Phase 2, Post Shankar Nagar, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Through In Impugned Order Mentioned As F-1, Pensionbada, Opposite Kundan Palace, Police Station City Kotwali, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioners versus 1. Vimal Kumar Jain S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain Aged About 68 Years R/o L-114, Geetanjali Nagar, Police Station Civil Line, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.01.09 17:02:44 +0530 2 2. Vipul Jain S/o Shri Vimal Kumar Jain Aged About 40 Years R/o L- 114, Geetanjali Nagar, Police Station - Civil Line, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Paranjape, Advocate along with Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Neeraj Baghel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjape along with Mr. Ashish Surana, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Neeraj Baghel, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. By way of this petition under Section 482 CrPC the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “3.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside and quash the impugned order dated 28.03.2017 (entire order sheet filed as ANNEXURE-P/1) passed by the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur District Raipur in Complaint Case No. 2862/2017 (Vimal Kumar Jain & another vs. Rajiv Mundra & another) and consequently quash the complaint as filed by the respondents. 3.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s)/order(s) in favour of petitioners, which deemed & just in the facts & circumstances of the case.” 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a complaint has been filed by the respondents against the petitioners on 07.07.2014 for an offence punishable under Section 191/194, 195, 203, 211, 427 and 499/500 and 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as 'IPC). He further submits that according to the complaint filed by the respondents, respondent No. 1 as a Manager of Jain Automobiles, entered into an agreement to sell a parcel of land measuring 0.148 hectares situated in Village Mowa, Patwari Halka No. 109, District Raipur, to Aarti Buildcon Private Limited. Respondent No. 1 submitted a written report to the Superintendent of Police on June 26, 2004, alleging that they had received an advance of five lakh rupees for sale of the land. Based on this report, Crime No. 160/2004 was registered against the respondents under Section 420 of the IPC at Pandri Police Station. The respondents were required to obtain bail in this case. The respondents then filed an application (MCRC No.1065/2005) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before this Court. The Court quashed the FIR (registered on July 28, 2004, at Pandri Police Station, Crime No. 160/2004) for offenses under Section 420 of the IPC, as well as the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 339/2005, through its order dated January 27, 2012. He also submits that in their complaint, the respondents alleged that Petitioner No. 1 lodged a false report and misused legal proceedings. They further alleged that the petitioners made false statements to the police, thereby committing the alleged offense. 4. He contended that after recording the complainant's statement, the trial Court summoned a report from the concerned police station. However, the trial Court subsequently, registered a case against the 4 petitioners for the alleged offenses under Sections 195, 203, 211, and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and issued a bailable warrant against them without obtaining the report. Upon perusing the bailable warrant issued by the trial Court, it is evident that the Court actually issued the warrant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, rather than for the alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were shocked to receive the bailable warrant, as they had not issued any cheque to the respondents. To understand the situation, the petitioners obtained a certified copy of the complaint and the entire order sheet of the criminal case, which revealed the registration of the offence for the alleged crime. He further contended that only petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were served with a copy of the bailable warrant. The impugned order of the trial court, registering the complaint and issuing a bailable warrant, is contrary to law and violates Sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Upon reviewing the entire complaint and witness statements, it is clear that the complaint filed by the respondent is not maintainable, and no offence is made out against the petitioners under Sections 195, 203, 211, and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 5. He also contended that on perusal of the entire case no offence of giving false evidence is made out. The Civil Suit field by Aarti Buildcon Private Limited against the respondents / complainant has been decreed by the trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 27.10.2017 passed in Civil Suit No. 21B/2011 and directed the respondents to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- to the petitioners within a period of 02 months from the date of passing of the order. Thereafter, the respondents had filed First Appeal against the said judgment and decree before the Co-ordinate Bench of 5 this Court, which is pending for adjudication and application for interim relief was rejected on 12.02.2018. He submits that quashment of the First Information Report is on the ground that essential ingredients of cheating is not made out and not on the ground that false evidence has been given by the petitioners. The complaint filed by the respondents is further not maintainable as the First Information Report was lodged by Aarti Buildcon Private Limited Company and company is not arrayed as party in the impugned complaint. 6. He also submits that the essential ingredients of cheating were not established, not because the petitioners provided false evidence. A complaint was filed by the company, and the petitioners' statements were recorded. Following an investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the respondents. The petitioners did not provide any false statements to the police. Moreover, since the petitioners' statements to the police authority were not given under oath, they cannot be prosecuted for giving false evidence, especially after this Court quashed the FIR registered against the respondents. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the respondents supported the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District Raipur in Complaint Case No. 2862/2017 vide order dated 28.03.2017, which warrants no interference by this Court under Section 482 CrPC. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. On perusal of the complaint filed by the respondent, necessary 6 ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 195 and 203 of the IPC is not made out. It also appears that on perusal of the entire complaint and the statements of the respondents, no offence under section 500 of the IPC is made out against the petitioners. There is no averment made by the respondents that the petitioners made or publish any imputation concerning respondents with an intention of harming or with knowledge or reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the respondents. As such, this Court finds that the necessary ingredients to constitute an offence under Sections 195 and 203 of the IPC are not made out. Furthermore, there is no record of a written complaint from the Court to take cognizance of the offence. Upon perusing the entire complaint and the statement of the respondents, this Court is satisfied that no offence under Section 500 of the IPC is made out against the petitioners. The respondents have failed to aver that the petitioners made or published any imputation concerning them with an intention of harming or with knowledge or reason to believe that it would harm their reputation. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Complaint Case No. 2862 of 2017 vide order dated 28.03.2017, is hereby quashed. 11. Resultantly, this petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek