1 2025:CGHC:39748 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2261 of 2024 1. Chhattisgarh Ispat Udyog A Partnership Firm, Through Its Partners (I) Arun Agrawal (II), Pradeep Agrawal Having Its Address At Main Road, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur Tehsil & District Raipur, Chhattisagarh. 2. Pradeep Agrawal, S/o Late Ram Avtar Agrawal, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Main Road, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Arun Agrawal, S/o Late Ram Avtar Agrawal, Aged About 63 Years, Partner Of Chhattisgarh Ispat Udyog Resident Of Main Road, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1. Ravi Agrawal, S/o Late Naththulal Agrawal, Aged About 66 Years, Partner Of Chhattisgarh Ispat Udyog, Resident Of Main Road, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Police Station Kabir Nagar, Through The Station House Officer, Kabir Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Ankur Agrawal, counsel appears along with and Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. D. K. Gwalre, Advocate. For State/Respondents No.2 & 3 : Ms. Binu Sharma, P.L. 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 08/08/2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 17.05.2024 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Session Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No.437/2022 and order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Complaint Case No.35042/2022, whereby the petitioner’s application under Section 156 (3) of CrPC has been rejected. 2. The case of prosecution in brief is that the petitioners filed a complaint under Section 156 (3) of CrPC before the JMFC alleging that the respondent no.1 being vested with the management of affairs of the petitioner partnership firm where the respondent no. 1 indulged in misappropriation of Coal worth Rs.4,75,500/-, Rolls worth Rs. 7,87,021/-, Finished Goods worth Rs. 1,51,51,472/-, Melting Scrap worth Rs. 1,83,325/-, Mill Scrap worth Rs 71,683/-, Raw Material worth Rs. 1,09,49,320/- and Store & Spares worth Rs. 7,45,800/-, total value worth Rs.2,83,68,121/- and thus caused the wrongful loss to the petitioners. Also the respondent no.1 had prepared forged partnership documents addenda on 01.10.2009 and 01.04.2011 and when the petitioner got the knowledge about the same has made the complaint to the police station and when no action was taken by the police, the petitioner has made the complaint to the S.P. Raipur, thereafter when no action was taken, the petitioners have filed the application under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the JMFC, but the JMFC has not considered the same and rejected accordingly, against which the revision was filed before the Session Judge, but the same has also been dismissed, against which the present petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders are 3 bad, illegal and deserve to be set aside. The balance sheet itself shows that there was no raw and finished materials and other products are left and it was never explained that the funds generated from the raw and finished materials were never shown in petitioner's partnership firm account, as the same is clearly misappropriated by the respondent no.1 who himself has accepted that the respondent no. I was keeping the book of accounts of the petitioner firm. Even the respondent no.1 never explained about forged addenda partnership deed and instead registration of the offences against the respondent no.1 the JMFC Raipur has rejected the same. Further the respondent no.1 has misappropriated the funds of the partnership firm and most of the transactions had been made in his personal accounts and documents of personal accounts of respondent no.1 will not be provided by the financial institutions to the petitioner. The respondents had played the fraud and has cheated the petitioner and it's not a case of civil nature and in fact, there is apparent criminal act seen on the part of the respondents. Even the respondent no.1 never explained about forged addenda partnership deed. The application under 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and complaint made to the police authorities discloses the cognizable offences and in the light of section 154 of Cr.P.C. and also in the light of Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 1, the Police is bound to register the FIR, but the same has not been followed. In case where such misappropriation of money is involved then in such a situation the learned magistrate have to direct the police to investigate the offences, but the learned JMFC has wrongly rejected petitioners’ application under Section 156 (3) of CrPC and has instead directed to register complaint under Section 200 of CrPC and further directed to submit list of witnesses, but it is beyond the power of the petitioner to brought such documents which can easily be brought by the police and therefore the orders of learned JMFC and learned Session Judge are illegal 4 and are liable to be set aside. 4. Learned State counsel and learned counsel for the respondent No.1 oppose the submission made by the petitioners’ counsel and jointly submit that primary evidence is not being produced by the petitioner since long before the trial Court, hence the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. Therefore, the petition is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 6. It has been informed by the learned State counsel that on complaint under Section 200 of CrPC, primary evidential proceedings are already going on considering the fact that there was commercial transaction between the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 and the respondent, as they were partners of the petitioner No.1 partnership firm. 7. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that there was commercial transaction between the parties, thus the order of the learned JMFC converting petitioners’ complaint from Section 156 (3) of CrPC into Section 200 of CrPC, hence, no invalidity or irregularity has been found. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this petition. 8. Consequently, the CRMP is dismissed at motion stage. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA NIRALA