1 2025:CGHC:1176 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 167 of 2018 Amisha Ayyer W/o Shri Raju Swami Aged About 23 Years R/o Aishwarya Niwas, Chourasia Colony, Mathpuraina, Tahsil and District Raipur Chhattisgarh, ... Petitioner versus Adarsh Chandraker S/o Goverdhan Prasad Chandraker Aged About 40 Years R/o House No. 203, Samta Colony, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Neelam Jaiswani, Advocte holding the brief of Mr. Chakresh Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.01 .2025 1. Heard Mr. Yogesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Neelam Jaiswani, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Chakresh Tiwari, Advocate, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.01.09 11:29:41 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “ It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition and the order dated 04.02.2017 passed in Complaint Case No. 1195/17 may kindly be set-aside and further, the Hon’ble Court may kindly quash the whole complaint case registered against the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the petitioner is a daughter of Shri Dinesh Swami and late Dr. Smt. Anita Swami. Mother of the petitioner late Dr. Smt. Anita Swami owns and possesses a house which is numbered as H.No. 52/284/1 (Aishwarya Niwas) situated at Math Puraina, Chourasia Colony, Raipur (C.G.) area about 1500 Sq. Ft. Dr. Smt. Anita Swami mother of the petitioner entered into agreement to sale the above property with the complainant on 03.01.2014 by agreed sum of Rs. 30,00,000/-. Dr. Anita Swami received a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- by way of Cheque of Bank of Badoda from the complainant and on the same day entered into an agreement with the complainant. Further, the complainant given Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of cheque to Dr. Smt. Anita Swami. In this way Dr. Smt. Anita Swami received a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- from the complainant by way of 3 different cheques. Because of above agreement complainant published Paper Publication (Aam Suchana) in the daily news paper on 25.03.2014 about any person having objection on the said sale of 3 the house in question. On 29.03.2017 a rebuttal of the above paper publication was published by stating that Dr. Smt. Anita Swami was expired on 23.03.2014. After rebuttal of the above general publication the complainant visited the house of the petitioner and request was made on behalf of the petitioner that the said sale agreement may kindly be cancel because now they did not want to sale the same. It was the contention of the complainant in the complaint that the accused person had accepted the payment of Rs. 12,00,000/-. Initially the complainant was not agreed but later on he agreed to cancel the sale agreement on a condition of payment of Rs. 12,00,000/- to the complainant immediately. Father of the petitioner, namely, Dinesh Swami issued cheque of Rs. 12,00,000/- to the complainant on 25.06.2014 of Gramin Bank, Telibandha Branch, Raipur (C.G.) but when complainant / respondent deposited the said cheque the said cheque was dishonored by stating that the account was closed. After dishonorment of the cheque the complainant sent legal notice dated 04.07.2014 to the petitioner and her father. Petitioner replied the legal notice by way of reply dated 09.07.2014 stating that she has not issued any cheque and therefore she did not have any liability of any type of payment. The respondent/complainant prefers a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) for registration of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of 4 IPC. The learned trial Court without appreciating the case on its own merits and without considering the fact that the said cheque was not issued by the petitioner nor she was the party of the said sale agreement nor she owns any liability to pay the same registered the complaint case against the petitioner alone. The order dated 04.02.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) is without any merits and liable to set aside. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant did not enter into any type of agreement with the petitioner. It is further admitted fact that the petitioner has not issued any cheque in favour of the complainant. The petitioner has no liability to pay any type of amount to the complainant. Therefore, in absence of all the above things no offence under Section 420 of IPC was made out. The petitioner has only handed over the cheque of her father, which did not constitutes any offence under Section 420 of IPC. The learned trial Court has not appreciated while registrations of the above criminal case that allegation against the present petitioner is that she has handed over the cheque to the complainant. Even cheque did not belong to the petitioner nor has she signed the cheque, and merely handing over cheque did not constitute any offence. Therefore, prima-facie case against the petitioner would not make out. For the purpose of constituting offence under Section 420 of IPC the necessary constituent is 5 presence of dishonest intention in the transaction. Since petitioner has only handed over the cheque it did not constitutes any dishonest intention. There was no allegation against the petitioner that she has forged or altered the cheque. The allegation is only that she has handed over the cheque to the complainant. Merely by handed over of the cheque did not constitutes dishonest intention especially when petitioner has neither signed the cheque nor she has any liability of the said payment. Thus, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set-aside. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the aforesaid submissions and submitted that after fully applying mind the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) passed the order dated 04.02.2017 in Complaint Case No. 1195/17, and there is no any illegality, infirmity or any jurisdictional error while passing the impugned order. Thus, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions made hereinabove and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. From the perusal of the records and submissions raised by the counsel for the petitioner, it transpires that the petitioner has only handed over the cheque of her father, further the cheque does not belong to the petitioner nor has she signed the cheque, and merely handing over cheque did not constitute any offence under 6 Section 420 of IPC, 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 order dated 04.02.2017 in Complaint Case No. 1195/17 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.), and all consequential proceedings arising thereof is hereby quashed. 8. Resultantly, this petition is allowed. 9. Office 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 Preeti