1 2025:CGHC:2831 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1284 of 2018 Ravi Agrawal S/o Ratan Kumar Agrawal Aged About 29 Years Director RSR Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Registered Office C-9, Shyam Market, Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Raipur Treasure Island Pvt. Ltd. Registered Address Office No. 68, 2nd Floor, Juhu Supreme Shopping Center, Gulmohar Kara, Road No. 09, Juhu, Mumbai (Maharashtra) Corporate Office At 6th Floor, Treasure Island, 11 Takoganj Main Road, Indore (M.P.) 3 - Avinash Hasija Director Raipur Treasure Island Pvt. Ltd., IPF 22/1, Shalimar Township Opposite 78 Scheme AB Road, Indore (M.P.) 452001. 4 - Yogesh Goswami Director Raipur Treasure Island Pvt. Ltd., 201 Vaibhav Apartment, 54 Scheme Amitesh Nagar, Near New Sabji Mandi, Indore (M.P.) 452012. 5 - Narayan Khandewal Director Raipur Treasure Island Pvt. Ltd., 1303 Scheme No. 414 Part-I, Indore (M.P.) 452010. 6 - Priyesh Dubey Independent Director, Raipur Treasure Island Pvt. Ltd., 1, Tiwari Colony, Jyoti Nagar Road, Ujjain (M.P.) 456010. 7 - Abhitap Kumar Jain Independent Director, Raipur Treasure Island Pvt. Ltd., M.P., 9-A, Near Brijeshwari Main, Bangali Square, Indore, 452110 (M.P.). 8 – C.K. Babaria S/o Late S.L. Babaria R/o Kavita Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Navin Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Ankita Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC for being aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2017 passed in Criminal Revision No. 117/2017 by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, District – Raipur (C.G.), arising out of the order dated 25.11.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District – Raipur (C.G.) in in an unregistered complaint case by which no direction has been issued to the Police authorities to register crime against the respondent No.2 to 8/accused, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned revisional Court. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that at the outset it is pertinent to mention here that a resolution dated 2nd April, 2018 has been passed by the Board of Directors of RSR Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. whereby the petitioner herein namely Ravi Agrawal, one of the Directors of the company, has been duly authorized to file petition, suit etc. on behalf of the company and to take steps which are necessary to recover the dues from Raipur Treasure Island Pvt. Ltd. An application was moved by the petitioner before the learned trial Court under Section 156(3) of CrPC for a direction to the 3 SHO, Police Station – Telibandha, Raipur (CG) to register a crime against Raipur Treasure Island Pvt. Ltd. and others under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC with the averments that respondent Nos.2 to 8/accused started construction of a multiplex complex Treasure Island at Village- Jora in Raipur and completed about 80% of the total construction work. The respondents/accused agreed to sell four units i.e. F- 38/E, F-38/D, F-38/C, F-38/F, admeasuring 486, 477, 477, 486 respectively, constructed at the first floor of the said complex to the petitioner herein. In furtherance thereof, respondent No.8/accused, CK Babaria, executed four separate agreements to sell on 02.04.2012 on behalf of the company in favour of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid shops. Thereafter, on 15.01.2013 respondent No.8/accused on behalf of the company again executed an agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner for sale of unit S-07 admeasuring 5683 situated at second floor of the said complex. In the application by the petitioner that the respondents/accused received partial payment of the sale consideration from the petitioner in lieu of sale of the aforementioned units/shops i.e. Rs. 16,69,500/- for F-38/C. Rs. 9,72,000/- for F-38/F, Rs. 14,35,000/- for F-38/D, Rs. 17,01,000/- for F-38/E, and Rs.22,00,000/- for S-7. Apart from this, the private respondents/accused also received Rs. 15,80,000/- from the petitioner, for which no receipt was given to him and which was assured to be adjusted in the stamp duty and registration charges 4 etc. Thus, the respondents/accused in this manner obtained a total sum of Rs. 95,57,500/- from the petitioner. 4. Before entering into agreements with the petitioner for sale of the aforementioned units, the accused had floated advertisement on 23.9.2012 for sale of the shops of the mall and the petitioner having read that advertisement contacted the respondents/accused and expressed his desire to purchase the said units. In this manner, agreements dated 02.04.2012 and 15.01.2013 came to be executed between the parties. At the time of execution of the agreements, the respondents/accused had stated that their possession over the mall in question is undisputed and it is free from all encumbrances and is not mortgaged anywhere. However, after few months of execution of the agreements, in the month of October, 2013 when the petitioner went to the said mall, he saw a notice affixed at the entrance of the mall of UCO Bank, Indore and Punjab National Bank, Mumbai that the mall that the respondents/accused in lieu of loan of Rs. 82,61,41,824/- and Rs. 52,65,64,000/- from the said banks respectively have mortgaged the mall with the bank authorities and it was further mentioned in the notice that on account of non-payment of the loan amount, the bank authorities have taken over possession of the mall. The petitioner having come to know about this got shocked and realized for the first time of being cheated fraudulently by the respondents/accused by keeping him in dark and selling the aforementioned units/shops of 5 the mall saying that their possession over the mall is undisputed, it is free from all encumbrances and is not mortgaged anywhere. After coming to know about the above notice, when the petitioner contacted the respondents/accused, they assured the petitioner of selling the units in question in his favour after repaying the loan amount to the banks and obtaining NOC from them. Believing the assurance of the accused persons the petitioner waited for some time but neither the loan was repaid by the accused persons nor the execution of the sale deed was done and later on it was found that the mall was about to be auctioned and proceedings have been initiated by the bank authorities. In this manner, the accused persons have cheated the petitioner fraudulently and have not performed their part of the contract as well as by committing forgery of the documents have caused wrongful loss to the petitioner. The learned trial Court vide order dated 25.11.2016 taking into consideration the Police report under Section 155 of CrPC and the case being not suitable for Police investigation, on the basis of documents annexed, deemed it appropriate to treat the said application as a complaint and fixed the case for primary evidence on 19.12.2016. 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2016, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision before the learned revisional Court. The learned revisional Court vide impugned order dated 23.10.2017 dismissed the revision upholding the order dated 25.11.2016 of the learned trial Court stating therein that the power 6 to be exercised under Section 156(3) of CrPC is discretionary one and should be used sparingly after applying judicial mind. The allegations of cheating and forgery based upon the agreements of sale dated 2.4.2012 have been made on 10.11.2016 after a long time and the learned Court of JMFC treated the application as complaint suo motu in order to provide an additional remedy to the petitioner to adduce evidence to prove his contention qua dishonest intention on the part of the accused persons to cheat at the very inception of execution of the agreements. The learned revisional Court thus finding no illegality or impropriety in the order of the learned JMFC dismissed the revision and affirmed the order of the trial Court. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Court has failed to see that the agreements to sell have been executed by the accused persons on 02.04.2012 stating that the mall in question is free from all encumbrances and without disclosing the fact that the same has been mortgaged with the bank authorities in lieu of receipt of loan. Thus, from the very perusal of the agreements it is clear that there was intention of cheating the petitioner on the part of the accused persons at the time of execution of the agreements and hence dishonest intention on their part can safely be inferred. It is further submitted that the wrongful gain of Rs. 95,57,500/- received by the accused persons at the time of execution of the agreements itself shows that act of the accused persons is having a criminal element 7 embedded in it and it could not be said that it is purely a civil dispute as it contains the very essential part of the offence alleged, that is to say, by dishonestly and fraudulently inducing the petitioner they made him deliver the property and there was a guilty intention essentially at the time when inducement was offered by the accused person to the petitioner. When the complaint has been made by the petitioner on 02.11.2016, the Police authorities erred in registering the information under Section 155 of CrPC without considering the fact that the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and on the basis of that it is the right of the petitioner that the FIR ought to have been registered on his complaint. It is further submitted that the petitioner also approached the Superintendent of Police, Raipur (SP) vide complaint dated 02.11.2016 for redressal of his grievances with regard to registration of FIR on his complaint against the accused persons but the SP also did not register the FIR and hence the petitioner was constrained to move an application under Section 156(3) of CrPC before the learned trial Court, Raipur for this purpose but the learned Court below also did not allow the application and failed to consider that the matter is required to be sent for Police investigation because the original documents as well as the other relevant documents could be seized only during the course of investigation by the Police. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal, erroneous, and arbitrary, is liable to be set-aside. 8 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned judgment and order dated 23.10.2017 passed in Criminal Revision No. 117/2017 by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, District – Raipur (C.G.), arising out of the order dated 25.11.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District – Raipur (C.G.) in an unregistered complaint case by which no direction has been issued to the Police authorities to register crime against the respondent No.2 to 8/accused, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned revisional Court, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the judgments/orders of the trial Court as well as the revisional Court, it transpires that no good ground has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner in the present case showing the importance of the present petition for quashment of the impugned order, thus, it is clear that after considering all the materials and after applying mind the learned revisional Court has passed the impugned order dated 9 23.10.2017 in Criminal Revision No. 117/2017, arising out of the order dated 25.11.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District – Raipur (C.G.), by which the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed, and there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the instant petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar