1 2025:CGHC:201 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2406 of 2018 K.P. Singh S/o Late Khilawan Singh Aged About 68 Years R/o Professor Colony, Near Ketulboard , Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Smt. Gourisha Mishra W/o Late Chandrakant Mishra Aged About 36 Years R/o M I G-1/621, Hudco, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - K Devasahayam S/o Late Chinnakoteyya Aged About 50 Years R/o Qtr. No.4-A, Sector-6, Near B Market, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02/01/2025 1. Heard Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ishan Verma, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents. 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order dated 23.07.2018 in the Criminal Revision No. 38/2018 passed by the learned First Additional Session’s Judge Durg, District – Durg (C.G.), arising out of the order dated 13.11.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) passed in Complaint Case No. 9951/2017. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the respondent No.1 had filed the complaint case before the learned JMFC, Durg stating therein that the respondent No.2 along with one person namely Abdul Hafiz Qureshi with the common intention of causing financial loss to the respondent No.1 tried to use one cheque which was given by the respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 for the purpose of withdrawal of her husband’s life insurance policy amount after the death of her husband. The respondent No.2 along with Abdul Hafiz Qureshi tried to withdraw the amount of Rs. 5 lacs from her bank account and when the respondent No.1 came to know about this fact, she filed the complaint case before the JMFC, Durg stating the complete facts in her complaint. The learned trial Court called for the report from Police and the Police filed his report on 04.02.2016 and after that the complainant filed an application dated 21.03.2016 to add the petitioner as an accused in the case, upon which, the learned trial Court vide its order dated 13.11.2017 registered the case against the petitioner and respondent No.2 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2017 passed by the learned 3 trial Court, the petitioner filed the revision before the revisional Court, which is also dismissed vide order dated 23.07.2018. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned revisional Court ought to have seen the fact that the respondent No.1 has not stated anything against the petitioner in her complaint and neither she has stated any relation of the petitioner with the said cheque No. 026919. Further the respondent No.1 has not submitted any documents which indicates the relation of the petitioner with the alleged offence, for which the respondent No.1 had filed the complaint. It is further submitted that the respondent No.1 have cancelled the fact that the peititoner has presented two Civil Suits against the respondent No.1 for the Specific Performance of the Contract Act, which is presently pending and because of the civil dispute, which is pending before the Civil Court, the respondent No.1 is trying to implicate the petitioner in a criminal case on false grounds to create pressure against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the respondent No.1 in her complaint have stated that she had given the said cheque to respondent No.2 and have also stated that the respondent No.2 with the help of Abdul Hafiz Qureshi had tried to use the said cheque for withdrawing a sum of Rs. 5 Lacs from her Bank Account and for that she treid to register the FIR against them and then filed a complaint case against the respondent No.1 and Abdul Hafiz Qureshi. It is further submitted that the Police has submitted its report against the petitioner on the basis of the statement of Abdul Hafiz Qureshi against whom the 4 respondent No.1 had filed her complaint case, and it is a sheer abuse of process of law to register a case against any person on the basis of the statement of any co-accused. Further the learned trial Court have not registered any case against Abdul Hafiz Qureshi against whom the respondent No.1 had filed the complaint and against whom the allegation of wrongful withdrawal of cheque was made by respondent No.1. It is further submitted that there is no evidence on record to show any involvement in the said offence. Thus, the impugned order passed by the revisional Court arising out of the order of the trial Court and all consequential proceedings arising thereof is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the private respondents submits that after fully applying mind the learned learned First Additional Session’s Judge Durg, District – Durg (C.G.), has dismissed the revision of the petitioner while passing the impugned order dated 23.07.2018 in the Criminal Revision No. 38/2018, arising out of the order dated 13.11.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) passed in Complaint Case No. 9951/2017, and there is no any infirmity and illegality while passing the same, therefore, instant petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions made herein and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 7. From the perusal of the records and submissions raised by the 5 counsel for the petitioner, it transpires that the respondent No.1 in her complaint have stated that she had given the said cheque to respondent No.2 and have also stated that the respondent No.2 with the help of Abdul Hafiz Qureshi had tried to use the said cheque for withdrawing a sum of Rs. 5 Lacs from her Bank Account and for that she tried to register the FIR against them and then filed a complaint case against the respondent No.1 and Abdul Hafiz Qureshi, thereafter, the Police has submitted its report against the petitioner only on the basis of the statement of Abdul Hafiz Qureshi against whom the respondent No.1 had filed her complaint case, further the respondent No.1 has not stated anything against the petitioner in her complaint and neither she has explained any relation of the petitioner with the said cheque No. 026919, and the respondent No.1 has not submitted any documents which indicates the relation of the petitioner with the alleged offence, for which the respondent No.1 had filed the complaint, 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 23.07.2018 in the Criminal Revision No. 38/2018 passed by the learned First Additional Session’s Judge Durg, District – Durg (C.G.), arising out of the order dated 13.11.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) passed in Complaint Case No. 9951/2017, and all consequential proceedings arising thereof is hereby quashed, qua the petitioner only. 8. Resultantly, this petition is allowed. 6 9. OfÏce 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 Rajshekhar