1 2025:CGHC:963 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1927 of 2018 1 - Bhilai Jaypee Grinding Plant A unit of Bhilai Jaypee Cement Ltd., a Commany Registered Under Companies Act, 1956, Having Its Manufacturing Unit At Bhilai Steel Plant Premises, Opp. Sector-4, Slag Road ( Near MOH) Bhiali District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rahul Kumar Director of Bhilai Jaypee Grinding Plant and Bhilai Jaypee Cement Ltd., R/o A-9/27 Vasnt Vihar New Delhi. 3 - Sushil Babu Pant CFO (KMP) Director Of Bhilai Jaypee Grinding Plant And Bhiali Jaypee Cement Ltd. R/o Jaypee-Rewa Plant, C-5, Jaypee Nagar, Rewa M. P. 4 - Upendra Mishra CFO (KMP) Director of Bhilai Jaypee Grinding Plant and Bhiali Jaypee Cement Ltd. R/o Parasmani (Sarsi) District Purnia Bihar. ... Petitioner(s) versus Roger Power Technologies Private Limited 504, 5th Floor, Shubham Corporate Building, Near Tatibandh Rly. Crossing Ring Road No.1 Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Udit Khatri, Advocate and Ms. Hiya Sonchhatra, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.13 18:51:44 +0530 2 Mr. Udit Khatri, learned counsel along with Ms. Hiya Sonchhatra, learned counsel, appearing for petitioner as well as Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order dated 14.08.2018 in the Criminal Revision No. 465/2017 passed by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) and further quashing and setting aside entire criminal case No. 1135/2017, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.). 3. Facts of the case are in brief, that the petitioners/non-applicants, by way of the instant petition, seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Hon’ble Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 14/08/2018 passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (CG), in Criminal Revision No. 465/2017 arising out of the order dated 20/04/2017 passed in Criminal Case No. 1135/17 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (CG). The petitioners further seek to quash the entire Criminal Case No. 1135/17 (Roger Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bhilai Jaypee Grinding Unit & others). The respondent company, M/s Roger Power Technologies Private Limited, having its works at Tatibandh, Raipur, is engaged in the business of manufacturing technical textile woven fabrics, commonly known as HPPE Bags and PP Woven Fabrics, which are extensively used in the Agriculture Industry, Metal Packaging Industry, Woven Bags Industry, etc. Earlier, in lieu of clearing a partial outstanding liability toward the 3 respondent’s bill, the petitioners’ company issued a cheque bearing No. 034674 for Rs. 20,00,000/- dated 01/11/2016, drawn on Axis Bank, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, in view of discharging its legal and admitted liability. The respondent, while presenting the aforesaid cheque on 10/11/2016 for clearance before the Bank of Baroda, Main Branch, Raipur, was informed that the cheque had been dishonored due to insufÏcient funds. Thereafter, on the petitioners’ assurance, the cheque was presented again for clearing on 25/01/2017. However, this time, the cheque was dishonored with a Cheque Return Memo dated 27/01/2017, stating the reason as ‘Payment stopped by drawer.’ The respondent then issued a legal notice to the petitioners dated 26/02/2017 through its Advocate. Petitioner No. 1’s manufacturing unit, Bhilai Jaypee Cement Ltd., submitted its reply on 03/03/2017, stating that Cheque No. 034674 could not be honored due to unforeseen inadvertent circumstances. However, payments were released to the respondent to the tune of ₹5,00,000/- on 30/11/2016 and ₹13,29,258/- via RTGS on 16/01/2017. As such, the liabilities stood settled as of the date of the notice, and the withdrawal of the notice was requested. Thereafter, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on 17/04/2017 before the learned JMFC, Raipur. The case was later registered as Criminal Case No. 1135/2017, impleading the present petitioner No. 1 along with all the directors and its main Cement Manufacturing Unit. Consequently, summons 4 were issued on 20/04/2017 after taking cognizance of the complaint filed by the respondent. The petitioners/non-applicants herein, along with other accused persons, contested the case and denied the contents of the complaint, stating that Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was not applicable, and no offense was made out against the petitioners. It was further pleaded that under Section 141 of the Act of 1881, the petitioners could not be held liable. The learned JMFC, Raipur, vide order dated 20/04/2017, registered the aforesaid complaint case and summoned as many as 13 accused persons. The petitioners herein, along with the other co- accused persons, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 20/04/2017, preferred a Criminal Revision under Sections 397 and 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the learned Sessions Court, Raipur, on 09/10/2017. The revision was registered as Criminal Revision No. 465/2017 on various grounds. It is pertinent to mention that during the relevant period, the Commercial Tax OfÏcer, Durg Circle-II, Durg (CG), vide notice dated 03/11/2016 under the provisions of Section 29(1) of the CG VAT Act, 2005, read with Rule 45 (Format-44) of the VAT Rules, seized the bank account of the petitioners’ company situated at Axis Bank, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. This resulted in the stoppage of the petitioners’ entire banking transactions, making it impossible for payments to be deposited or withdrawn. Consequently, the payment owed to the respondent/complainant could not be made. The seizure of the petitioners’ company’s bank account was lifted with effect from 04/03/2017, pursuant to the order passed by the Additional 5 Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Raipur, dated 01/03/2017. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, vide impugned order dated 14/08/2018, in an arbitrary and illegal manner, partly allowed the revision. As a result, the order dated 20/04/2017 passed by the learned JMFC, Raipur, was afÏrmed, summoning revisionists No. 1, 4, 12, and 13, i.e., the petitioners No. 1 to 4 herein, while setting aside the summoning of accused Nos. 2, 3, and 5 to 11. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 14/08/2018, passed by the learned revisional Court rejecting the revision petition, as well as the order dated 20/04/2017 of the JMFC taking cognizance of the complaint case and issuing summons, along with the entire Criminal Case No. 1135/17, is not only bad, illegal, and arbitrary in nature but also constitutes an abuse of law and a miscarriage of justice. This is particularly evident given that, even if the complaint case is taken at face value, no case worthy of trial is made out against the present petitioners/non-applicants for the alleged commission of offenses under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As of the date of filing the complaint case, there was no legally enforceable debt or liability on the part of the present petitioners/non-applicants toward the respondent/applicant. Furthermore, it is a well-settled principle of law, as established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in several decisions, including Lokesh Kumar Jain v. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 11 SCC 130, State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, 6 (1998 Supp. I SCC 335), Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, Asoke Basak v. State of Maharashtra & Others, (2010) 10 SCC 660, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Another v. Datar Switchgear Ltd. & Others, (2010) 10 SCC 479, VP Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives Ltd. & Others, (2010) 10 SCC 361, State of Maharashtra v. Arun Gulab Gawali, (2010) 9 SCC 701, S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Another, (2010) 5 SCC 600, and Subrata Das v. State of Jharkhand & Another, (2010) 10 SCC 798, that if the entire case is taken as it is, no case worth trial is made out for the alleged commission of the offense under Section 420 of the IPC. 5. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the order passed by the learned revisional Court as well as learned trial Court in which no interference called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions made herein and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 7. From the perusal of the records and submissions raised by the counsel for the petitioner, it transpires that the whole amount has already paid to the complainant Company and nothing has remained left against the accused and the said fact has also reflected in the order passed by the revisional Court. Moreover, from the perusal of the record and allegations levelled against the petitioner there appears to be dispute of payment of money which 7 is a pure civil dispute between the parties. The present proceeding appears to be abuse and process of law against the petitioners. Thus, the present case appears to be a fit case for interference by this Court for exercising the inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC. The impugned order dated 14.08.2018 in the Criminal Revision No. 465/2017 passed by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.), and all consequential proceedings arising thereof is hereby quashed. 8. Resultantly, this petition is allowed. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan