1 2025:CGHC:37840 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2388 of 2025 1 - Prakash Tamrakar S/o Late Kishan Lal Tamrakar, Aged About 46 Years, Vidyut Nagar Durg, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Rahul Jain S/o Prakash Jain, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Sanichiri Bazar, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Palash Jain S/o Sanjay Jain, Aged About 27 Years, R/o House No. 12, Ward No. 25, Sabji Market, Dallirajhara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate. For Respondents : Not noticed. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 01/08/ 2025 1. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.), in Criminal Revision No. 90/2025, arising out of the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.) in MJC No. 11977/2025, whereby the SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.08.01 17:03:13 +0530 2 appellate Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the order passed by the JMFC, Durg, wherein the application filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) was rejected on the ground that the dispute between the parties appears to be civil in nature. 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner and respondents entered into a partnership agreement for "Prakash & Company" on 05.08.2021. However, the respondents allegedly conspired to oust the petitioner, mismanaged the firm's accounts, and engaged in irregular transactions. The petitioner was denied access to business records and his rightful share of profits. Despite freezing the firm's bank account to protect assets, the respondents continued to operate the firm in violation of norms, causing financial losses. They also misappropriated the petitioner's share in profits and used the firm's assets for another business without the petitioner's consent. The petitioner lodged complaints with the police, but no action was taken. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the JMFC and the Revisional Court have erroneously held that the dispute is purely civil in nature. The allegations made by the petitioner clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences, including criminal breach of trust, misappropriation of firm assets, forgery of records, and deliberate exclusion from partnership business. These acts are punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. In relation to these allegations, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, seeking directions 3 for registration of an FIR, which was, however, dismissed by the trial court. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 27.06.2025, and 18.03.2025, passed by the Revisional Court and the trial court, respectively, are liable to be set aside. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record including the impugned orders. 5. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon examining the order dated 18.03.2025, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, as affirmed by the Revisional Court's order dated 27.06.2025, this Court finds that the dispute is essentially civil in nature. Consequently, this Court finds no cogent reason to interfere with the impugned orders. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.