1 2025:CGHC:44923 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2562 of 2025 1. Ashok Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Bindeshwar Prasad Gupta Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No. 09 Lakhanpur, Thana - Lakhanpur, Distt - Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner/complainant versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Ambikapur, Distt. - Surguja Chhattisgarh 2. Mahendrapal S/o Late Shri Chirjiivi Lal Padwal Aged About 35 Years By Caste Panika, R/o Ward No. 07 Lakhanpur, Thana - Lakhanpur, Distt. - Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. K.K. Baharani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 3/9/2025 1. Petitioner-complainant has filed this petition under Section ection 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) against the order dated 3.4.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No.14/2025 by which learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur while setting aside the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Ambikapur dated 20.2.2025, SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 remanded back the matter with a direction to record preliminary statement of petitioner/complainant. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without considering the facts and evidence on record. The averments made in complaint disclose cognizable offence of cheating and therefore, learned revisional Court ought to have ordered for registration of FIR and investigation into matter, in stead of remanding back the matter to the Magistrate for recording of preliminary evidence of petitioner. Hence, a prayer has been made to set-aside the impugned order by allowing present revision. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposing submission of learned counsel for applicant, would submit that learned Sessions Judge committed no error in passing in impugned order. The revisional Court has rightly not directed for registration of FIR. 4. Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the documents filed along with petition. 5. Petitioner filed an application under Section 156 (3) of CrPC praying for registration of offence under Section 420 of IPC against respondent No.2 herein alleging that respondent No.2 borrowed money from applicant assuring him that he will return at the time of marriage of applicant’s daughter, but he 3 failed to abide by the assurance to applicant. Thereafter, respondent No.2 asked the petitioner to get money by refinancing his car and he will pay the installment of the same. However, after paying one installment, he stopped making payment of installment. When applicant put pressure on respondent No.2 for return of his money, he gave in writing that he will deposit Rs.4000-5000/- per month, but he has not returned the amount and thereby cheated the applicant. 6. Learned Magistrate, after hearing learned counsel for complainant/applicant and going through the documents annexed with complaint, dismissed the complaint on the ground that there is no allegation of obtaining money by allurement or false pretext and non-fulfillment of undertaking to repay the loan amount cannot be a ground to proceed against any person under Section 420 of IPC. 7. Being aggrieved with order of dismissal of complaint, applicant preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, which came to be allowed in part vide order impugned on the ground that the Magistrate dismissed the complaint of applicant without conducting inquiry and recording evidence of complainant and his witnesses. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the learned Magistrate to decide the complaint in accordance with law i.e. by conducting inquiry 4 after recording pre-summoning evidence of complainant in his support. 8. Once an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC is submitted before the Magistrate, he has two options. He can either send the case for investigation to concerned Police Station in the facts and circumstances of a particular case or instead of doing so, he may opt for taking cognizance on the complaint of the complainant, may proceed to record testimony of the complainant and his witnesses in pre-summoning evidence and thereafter, may decide whether a case for summoning of accused is made out or not. In case at hand, learned Magistrate declined to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of allegations as set forth in the application filed under Section 156 (3) CrPC and had not afforded an opportunity to the petitioner for adducing any pre-summoning evidence, although the matter was listed for recording of evidence before registration on 8.7.2024, 2.8.2024, 2.9.2024, 11.9.2024, as mentioned in Para-14 of the impugned order. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error in passing the impugned order remanding back the matter to the Magistrate to decide the complaint in accordance with law i.e. to conduct inquiry after affording opportunity of leading pre-summoning evidence to complainant. 5 9. Learned Magistrate considering the grounds pleaded in application that money was borrowed to meet medical necessity and further that non-applicant refused to comply with undertaking given by him to repay loan, dismissed the application recording that primary ground to attract offence under Section 420 of IPC is missing. Learned revisional Court without issuing notice passed the impugned order. In the facts of the case where non-applicant/respondent herein was not noticed and order was passed, this Court is not commenting on merits of the case and is not interfering with the impugned order because of not finding any good ground. 10. For the foregoing discussions and reasons, the instant revision has no substance, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd-/ (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-