1 2025:CGHC:3586 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1931 of 2022 Vijay Kumar Das S/o Shri R.B Das Aged About 46 Years R/o LIG-66, Avanti Vihar, Police Station Khamardih, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Officer In Charge, Police Station Rakhi, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Senior Superintended of Police Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Inspector General of Police Raipur Range Civil Lines, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Bhupendra Singh Atbhaiya S/o Kunwar Singh Atbhaiya R/o Near Mahadeva Talab, Changorabhatha, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Shashi Kiran Atbhaiya W/o Shri Bhupendra Singh Atbhaiya Aged About 37 Years R/o Near Mahadeva Talab, Changorabhatha, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.4 & 5: Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Mamta Patel, Advocate ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.01.22 15:29:18 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 21.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 3 and Ms. Fouzia Mirza, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Mamta Patel, learned counsel apperaing for respondents No.4 and 5. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased quash preferred order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the 2nd Additional Session Judge Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Criminal Revision No.112/2022, to secure the ends of justice. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deem fit, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate and respondent No.4 is working as a contractor with the Government Department and respondent No.5 is working working as Inspector in the office of Registrar Co-opeartive Society Chhattisgarh, 3 Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Two cheques amounting of Rs. 13.25,000/- were given by respondent No.4 to the petitioner and due to insufficient funds in bank account of respondent No.4, the cheques were bounced on 12.02.2020. Respondents No.4 and 5 want to shrug of the liability that they owe to the petitioner, as by not returning the money taken by the petitioner and therefore giving the bounced cheque to the petitioner and further implicating him to the false sexual harassment case, a written complaint was presented before respondent No.2 on 24. 02. 2020 for issuance of order to respondent No.1 to take proper legal action against the respondents No.4 and 5 and no action was taken.Thereafter, another application was made by petitioner before respondent No.1 on 14.03.2020 regarding intimation of proper legal action and registering of the FIR, which was requested and the FIR was not registered. 4. On 18.03.2020, even after submitting the application to respondent No.2, no action was taken and on 11.06.2020, application was submitted to respondent No.3 directing the officer in-Charge of Rakhi Police Station, Raipur to take strict legal action without delay against respondents No.4 and 5, but no action was taken by respondent No.1. The fact of threatening and false prosecution done by the respondents No.4 and 5 was duly intimated by the petitioner on 05.03.2020 and 14.03.2020. Again, on 16.03.2020, a direction was issued to take legal action was made, in which again no action was taken by respondent No.3. 5. When no action was taken by respondent authorities against the private respondent, the petitioner preferred an application on 15.03.2021 4 under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) and thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Raipur, District Raipur (C.G) erroneously rejected the application made by petitioner stating that necessary element and evidence are not available to direct the police officer to file a FIR against the private respondents vide its order dated 17.03.2022. 6. 6. Being aggrieved with the order dated 17.03.2022, the petitioner filed a Revision of the said order before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, (C.G), which was dismissed by the Revisional Court vide its order dated 07.04.2022 affirming the order dated 17.03.2022. 7. Challenging the impugned order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) passed in Criminal Revision No.112/2022, instant Cr.M.P. has been filed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is arbitrary and erroneous as also opposed to the principles of natural justice as in the revision order, the Court has not considered the prima facie occurrence of cognizable offence committed by the respondents No.4 and 5 as mentioned in the application under 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that while passing the impugned order, the Court has not considered the fact that to shrug off the liability of paying Rs.13,25,000/- to petitioner, respondents No.4 and 5 have registered the false complaint, which is an afterthought. It has been contended that respondents No.1 and 2 are acting in favour of private respondents No.4 and 5 by not registering the FIR against them as even after intimating the police, no action taken 5 by them thereby denying the primary duty of registering the FIR. 9. Mr. Shailendra Shrama, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3/State opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that though intimation under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. was given to the petitioner about non-cognizable offence and was advised to approach to the Court, but in spite of that, the petitioner made representations before the police authorities that no action is being taken over his complaint and he preferred an application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur for taking action against the respondents No. 4 and 5 as the cheques given by them have bounced and no action is being taken by the respondent police authorities, but the said application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (CG) vide its order dated 17.03.2022 for want of necessary element and evidence and on account of the same, the police was not directed to register FIR against the private respondents i.e. respondents No. 4 and 5 as prima facie no sufficient materials were available for FIR against the respondents No. 4 and 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.03.2022, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.112/2022 before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur and the said revision was rejected vide order dated 07.04.2022 affirming the order dated 17.03.2022, which is just and proper and in accordance with law. 10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the instant Cr.M.P. 6 11. Considering the matter in its entirety as well as further considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties as also material available on record, it is apparent that learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Raipur, District Raipur (C.G) rejected the application made by petitioner stating that necessary element and evidence are not available to direct the police officer to file a FIR against the private respondents vide its order dated 17.03.2022, which too affirmed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, (C.G) vide its order dated 07.04.2022 while rejecting the Criminal Revision No.112/2022. 12. Taking into account the overall aspect of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that both the Trial Court as well as Revisional Court have not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 13. Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of merit is liable and is hereby dismissed. 14. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu