-1- 2025:CGHC:45599 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2653 of 2023 Prem Singh Chouhan Son Of Late D.S. Chouhan, Aged About 84 Years R/o. Smriti Bhawan, Near Shahid Chowk, Station Road, Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant (s) versus Ashok Kumar Gupta Son Of Late Hari Das Gupta, Aged About 58 Years R/o. Haldi Bari, Chirmiri, District - Manendragarh-Chirmiri, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 08/09/2025 1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 18th August 2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Criminal Revision No.166 of 2023 whereby revision filed by petitioner against order dated 14.03.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg has been dismissed. Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.09.11 11:23:09 +0530 -2- 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent has issued cheque in favour of petitioner of his account of Central Bank of India. Cheque was issued by respondent under the signature which was not available in Bank records. He contended that information in this regard was supplied by the Bank vide Annexure P-3 (Ex.A-3) which was filed by the petitioner before the Magistrate along with complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance for alleged commission of offence under Section 420 of IPC. However, complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that there is no material available in record to suggest that non- applicant has committed any offence as defined under Sections 420 and 471 of IPC. Against rejection of complaint, petitioner preferred revision before Additional Sessions Judge, Durg which also came to be dismissed by impugned order. He contended that both the Courts below failed to take into consideration, the documents Ex.A-3 which is information supplied by Bank about signature of respondent which is different than that applied in cheque by drawer. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the documents enclosed along with this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is solely on the ground that both the Courts below have failed to take note of -3- Ex.A-3 which bears signature of respondent/non-applicant, which is differently than as mentioned in cheque issued in favour of petitioner. Perusal of Annexure P-2 which is an order dated 14.03.2023 of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg would show that learned Magistrate has considered the documents as referred by petitioner before this Court and also before learned Magistrate i.e. Ex.A-3 and has categorically recorded a finding that signature as mentioned in cheque Ex.A-8 and signature as mentioned in alleged information Ex.A-3 is of different persons. Signature mentioned in Ex. A-8 is of Branch Manager and signature mentioned in Ex.A-3 is the signature of respondent and further recorded a finding that in view of said fact prima facie there is no ingredients to attract provision under Section 420 of IPC and further there is no ingredients attracting provision under Section 471 of IPC. 5. Learned Revisional Court also taking note of provision as defined under Section 463 of IPC, definition of forgery, came to conclusion that there is no prima facie material produced by complainant so as to issue process against respondent and has dismissed the revision. Before this Court also learned counsel for the petitioner could not able to make out a case that finding recorded by learned Magistrate and Revisional Court is erroneous or perverse to the documents submitted or the statement of complainant recorded before the Magistrate. However, he only referred to Annexure P-3 in which copy of -4- cheque and copy of Ex.A-3 information supplied by Central Bank of India is mentioned. 6. Perusal of information which is stated to be supplied by Central Bank of India under Right to Information Act, would show that it only certifies the holding of account by Ashok Kumar Gupta in its Bank bearing account number as mentioned therein. It does not give any information about specimen of signature of account holder i.e. Ashok Kumar Gupta. The said information was given under signature of Branch Manager and therefore submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that signature as mentioned in part of Annexure P-3 i.e. information supplied by Bank about signature of Ashok Kumar Yadav to be different, on the face of document, is not correct. Bank has not given any information about specimen signature of respondent available in Bank. 7. Complaint application is filed for initiating proceedings of issuing process and convicting respondent for offence under Section 420, 471 of IPC only on the ground that signature as appearing in both documents as forming part of Annexure P-3 of Ashok Kumar Gupta is different. As the trial Court i.e. Magistrate, Revisional Court and this Court, on the face of documents of case, came to conclusion that signature in both documents in Annexure P-3 is of different person therefore submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is not sustainable. 8. For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any illegality or -5- infirmity in the order passed by learned Revisional Court. 9. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/---/-/---/-/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen