1 2025:CGHC:2314 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1234 of 2018 Anil Gidwani S/o Late Sudamamal Gidwani, Aged About 45 Years, R/o- Sai Nagar, Jail Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, ... Petitioner versus 1. Rishi Ranglani S/o Mr. P.M. Ranglani Aged About 34 Years R/o- Cool Homes, Mowa, P.S. Mowa, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 2. Smt. Soumya Ranglani W/o Mr. Rishi Ranglani Aged About 30 Years R/o- Cool Homes, Mowa, P.S. Mowa, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 3. Kamal Badwani S/o Mr. Dayaram Badwani R/o- Fafadih Naka Gali Number-1, P.S. Devendranagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 4. State of Chhattisgarh Through- District Magistrate, Raipur, Chhattisgarhl, ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Agrawal as well as Mr. Raza Ali, Advocates. For Respondent No.4/State : Ms. Subha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents : Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ankur Agrawal as well as Mr. Raza Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Mayank Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for respondents and Ms. Subha Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 4/State. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.01.17 11:09:45 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC for being aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2017 passed in Cr. Revision No.175/2016 by the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.), whereby the learned Judge has afÏrmed the order dated 24.05.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in an unregistered complaint case. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that the petitioner herein has filed the complaint case before the JMFC, Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 294, 506-B, 120-B and 406 of the Code of Indian Penal against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and made averments that the respondent No. 1 to 3 has been allotted the construction work of godown of the petitioner for which respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has promised the petitioner that they will complete the said work within 3 to 4 months, further respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has also stated that the said construction will cost Rs. 30,31,000/- and upon that assurance respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has fraudulently taken the amount of Rs. 28,51,000/- on different dates but has not completed the construction for which one complaint has been made to the Police station Khamtrai and in which respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has again made promise before the police authorities that they will complete then work and again taken the remaining amount of Rs 180,000/- from the petitioner but has not completed the work. The petitioner has stated in complaint case that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has fraudulently taken the amount and made the false assurance with the intent to cheat the petitioner and usurp the money of the petitioner and sought before the JMFC, Raipur to registered the complaint case under the aforesaid section against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and punish them for their offence. The learned JMFC, Raipur after filing of the complaint case has lead the opportunity to the petitioner to submit the primary evidence, 3 in which the petitioner has examined himself and one other witness and has also filed the documents before the trial Court, the trial Court after hearing the arguments has refused to register the complaint case and dismissed the complaint case at the primary stage on the grounds that the nature of the allegation is of the civil nature. Therefore, against the said order of the JMFC Raipur the petitioner has filed the revision before the 1st Additional Session Judge Raipur on dated 31.05.2016 against the order of the JMFC Raipur. The said revision registered as Criminal Revision No. 175/2016 and the revisional Court passed the Order dated 21.12.2017 thereby confirmed the order passed by the JMFC and rejected the revision petition of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the orders impugned of both the trial Court as well as revisional Court are perverse and not sustainable in law. He further submits that to register the complaint case the essential ingredients is to see whether prima-facie the offence has been committed or not and in the present case from the records and statement made by the petitioner, reflects the commission of offence by respondent Nos. 1 to 3. He further submits that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have made the false assurance for the construction of the godown of the petitioner for which the respondents has fraudulently taken the amount from the petitioner and has not completed the said work and when the petitioner asked for the construction work, the respondents abuses the petitioner and threaten the him, and when against the said action of the respondents the petitioner filed the complaint case, the trial Court refused to registered the complaint case and the revisional Courts confirms the said order, which shows that both orders of both the Courts suffer from material irregularity. Mere by saying that the matter is related to civil dispute is not the ground for non-registration of the complaint 4 case. Thus, both the Subordinate Courts have committed the error in the eye of the law. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3 as well as for State oppose the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned judgment and order dated 21.12.2017 passed in Cr. Revision No.175/2016 by the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur(C.G.), whereby the learned Judge has afÏrmed the order dated 24.05.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in an unregistered complaint case. They further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order, therefore, the instant petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. 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 is clear that after considering all the material facts and after applying mind, the order dated 21.12.2017 passed in Cr. Revision No.175/2016 by the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur(C.G.), whereby the learned Judge has afÏrmed the order dated 24.05.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, and hence, the impugned order passed by the learned revisional Court does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error which may call interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 5 9. 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 Preeti