1 2025:CGHC:771 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1578 of 2018 1 - Smt. Jessy Sanjay Mathew W/o Late Sanjay V. Mathew, Aged About 50 Years R/o H. No. 995, MIG-1, Amdinagar, Hudco, Bhilai, Tehsil And District – Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Vinny S. Mathew D/o Late Sanjay V. Mathew, Aged About 28 Years R/o H. No. 995, MIG-1, Amdinagar, Hudco, Bhilai, Tehsil And District – Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - C.N. Mohnen @ Raju S/o Shri Naranayan Aged About 53 Years R/o Q. No. 38/C, Street No. 15, Smriti Nagar, Junwani, Bhilai, Tehsil And District – Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Durg, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No.2/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 private respondent No.1, as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2/State. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC for being aggrieved by the order dated 18.04.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. 12/2018 by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.), arising out of the order dated 11.09.2017 passed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 7194/2019 by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.), whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned revisional Court. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that the respondent no. 1 filed a complaint case against the petitioners under Sections 406 and 420/34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), in which learned JMFC Durg, has registered the offence under Section 420 of IPC on 11.09.2017. Petitioners contacted to respondent No. 1 for sale of their land bearing khasra No. 220/2, 220/3 and 220/4 total Area 0.33 hectare situated at Risali, P.H. No. 19, Revenue Circle -1. Petitioners and respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement dated 29.08.2014 and according to agreement Canara Bank cheque No. 890491 Rs. 8,00,000/- (Eight Lakh), State Bank cheque No. 515974 Rs. 4,00,000/- and two others cheque given to petitioners on 13.01.2015. Petitioners deposited the cheques in their accounts and obtained the money Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty 3 Lakh). Petitioners sold their land to Smt. Sobha Suresh and Sandhya Rajesh and obtained the signature of respondent No. 1/complainant as a witness at Sub Registrar Office, Durg, and respondent No.1/complainant could not understand the conspiracy of petitioners. Respondent No.1/complainant gave a complaint to S.P. on 27.06.2016 but no action has been taken by the Police, therefore, respondent No.1 filed a complaint case for offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC against the petitioners and accordingly prayed. 4. The agreement which has been executed between the petitioner and respondent No.1 on 29.08.2014 reveal that the agreement took place for property in question for consideration of Rs. 82,00,000/- at ICICI Bank cheque No. 813719 dated 28.08.2014 for Rs. 15,00,000/- and Canara Bank cheque no. 969986 dated 28.08.2014 for Rs. 5,00,000/-. Venders/Petitioners committed that they will register the land in the name of vendee or person nominated by vendee after receiving the balance amount up to March, 2015. This agreement has been witnessed by the one Shri K.C. Sajan R/o 995, MIG-1, Hudco Bhilai. 5. Respondent No. 1 sent a legal notice on 26.05.2016 to the petitioner. The legal notice reveals that the agreement took place on 29.08.2014 for consideration of Rs. 82,00,000/- and accordingly, ICICI Bank cheque No. 813719 dated 28.08.2014 for Rs. 15,00,000/- and Canara Bank cheque No. 969986 dated 4 28.08.2014 for Rs. 5,00,000/-. Petitioners executed sale-deed in favour of Smt. Subha Suresh and Smt. Sandhya Rajesh on 29.07.2015. Accordingly to notice petitioner entered with an agreement to sale property to respondent No. 1 and received Rs. 20,00,000/- but sold the property to third person suppressing the agreement. 6. The respondent No. 1 made a complaint to Superintendent of Police, Durg on 27.06.2016. Contents of complaint revels that the agreement took place on 29.08.2014 and amount paid on 13.01.2015, by cheques, accordingly, petitioners obtained Rs. 20 Lakhs: • Canara Bank cheque No. 890491 for Rs. 8,00,000/- • State Bank cheque No. 515974 for Rs. 4,00,000/- • Canara Bank cheque No. 969994 for Rs. 4,00,000/- • Canara Bank cheque No. 969995 for Rs. 4,00,000/- Respondent No. 1 had been made witness cleverly by petitioner in sale deed and without cancellation of agreement petitioner sold the land to Sandhya Rajesh and Subha Suresh. Petitioners committed cheating and taken Rs. 20,00,000/- on account of sale of land. 7. The sale-deed executed by petitioners to Smt. Subha Suresh and Smt. Sandhya Rajesh and witnessed by the respondent No. 1/Complainant and one Shri Thaikat Rajesh executed on 29.07.2015 reveals that the Sale-deed executed on market value 5 of consideration of Rs. 61,05,000/-: • ICICI Bank ch. No. 813719 dated 28.08.14 Rs. 15,00,000/- • Canara Bank ch. No. 969986 dated 28.08.2014 Rs. 5,00,000/- • SBI cheque No. 059253 dated 26.07.2015 Rs. 10,00,000/- • SBI cheque No. 059254 dated 26.07.2015 Rs. 10,00,000/- • ICICI Bank ch. No. 005882 dated 25.07.2015 Rs. 20,00,000/- • Cash amount received by petitioners Rs. 1,05,000/- Complainant signed and put thumb impression as witnesses. Agreement dated 29.08.2014 and sale deed dated 29.07.2015 disclosed that during the agreement two cheque given by the vendee at the time of agreement as per following cheques. • ICICI Bank ch. No. 813719 dated 28.08.14 Rs. 15,00,000/- • Canara Bank ch. no. 969986 dated 28.08.2014 Rs. 5,00,000/- 8. On the instructions of learned JMFC, Police Station Nawai submitted his report dated 16.06.2017 regarding transaction took place amongst all the parties. As on respondent No. 1/complainant recorded his statement before the JMFC under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., the statement of complainant reveals that Rs. 20,00,000/- given to the petitioners by the respondent No. 1 on account agreement and one Mr. Suresh agreed to purchase the land. Complainant stated that Rs. 8,00,000/- from Canara Bank, Rs. 4,00,000/- from SBI cheque and two 4,00,000/- cheques Rs. 4,00,000/- and ICICI Bank from Suresh, accordingly, paid Rs. 40,00,000/-. Accused persons committed cheating and 6 refused to refund of Rs. 20,00,000/-. 9. On the instruction of learned JMFC respondent No.1/complainant submitted his Canara Bank account statement. As per account statement as on 17.01.2015 cheque no. 890491 Rs. 8,00,000/- dated 14.01.2015 has been cleared and as on 16.01.2015 cheque No. 515974 Rs. 4,00,000/- dated 14.01.2015 has been cleared and amount credited to petitioner account. On the basis of complaint, statement of complainant and documents, as on 11.09.2017 learned JMFC had come to the conclusion that the conduct of accused persons towards receipt of amount from complainant under pretext of sale of property and under failure of contract their consequent failure the tender the said amount to complainant reveals offence of cheating on the part of accused persons to realize the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/-, which is punishable under Section 420 of IPC. Against the order of passed by the learned JMFC on 11.09.2017 petitioner preferred the revision before the Sessions Court and contended that the learned trial Court committed illegality because, there is a contradiction and no case is made out. Learned JMFC in one hand rejected the prayer of 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and in other hand registered the offence under Section 420 of IPC. No ingredients is available for offence under Section 420 of IPC and even if entire complaint is taken in its face value no case is made out. As on 18.04.2018 the learned 4th Additional Session Judge, Durg dismissed the said revision on the ground that before registration 7 of complaint evidence of complainant and his document is considerable. Hence, this petition. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondent No. 1/complainant firstly issued the legal notice on 26.05.2016 and in respect of notice petitioners sent their reply and clearly stated that act of complainant is fall under section 384 of IPC, but, complainant did not submit it before the trial Court. It is further submitted that from examination of all payment made to petitioner in respect of agreement clearly indicate that total 82,00,000/- paid to the petitioner and registry has been done in the instance of complainant to vendee. It is further submitted that from examination of agreement dated 29.08.2014, it is clear that all the payment has been done in respect of agreement and looking to the sale deed it is clear that registry has been done on market value therefore, it is clear that Suresh Thaykot and Rejesh Thaykot join-hands with complainant in order to implicate the petitioner. It is further submitted that all the transaction took place on account of agreement and sale deed executed at market value, therefore, amount received in compliance of agreement is legal, hence, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No.1 Opposes the prayer of the instant petitioner filed by the petitioner and submits that it cannot be said that no offence is disclosed against the petitioner and there is an ample evidence against the 8 petitioner for cheating the complainant for the amount in question which has been alleged in the complaint. Hence, the learned trail Court has found the petitioners guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC, and passed the order dated 11.09.2017 which has also been afÏrmed by the learned revisional Court by passing the order dated 18.04.2018, and there is no any illegality and infirmity in the same. Therefore, the instant petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned judgment and order dated 18.04.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. 12/2018 by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.), affirming the order dated 11.09.2017 passed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 7194/2019 by learned JMFC, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.), 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. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 14. 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 it cannot 9 be said that no offence is disclosed against the petitioner and there is an ample evidence against the petitioner for cheating the complainant for the amount in question which has been alleged in the complaint, thus, after considering all the materials and after applying mind the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.), has passed the impugned order dated 18.04.2018 in Criminal Revision No. 12/2018, affirming the order dated 11.09.2017 passed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 7194/2019 by learned JMFC, Durg, District – Durg (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. 15. Accordingly, the instant petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 16. 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