1 2025:CGHC:23109 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2488 of 2018 Ajay Kumar Chaturvedi S/o Chowaram Chaturvedi Aged About 28 Years R/o Village And Post Nardha Police Station Jamul District Durg Chhattisgarh (Compliant), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Kumbhakaran Joshi @ K.K. Joshi S/o Late Rajulal Joshi Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Murmunda Poliice Station Nandini Nagar ,tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh ., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent(s) For Petitioners :Mr. Suraj Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent No.2/State :Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11/06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Suraj Patel, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent No.2/State. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following prayer:- “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 27.09.2018 (Annexure P/1), in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1/accused is posted as Shiksha Karmi and the respondent No. 1 & petitioner are well acquainted to each other. The respondent No.1/accused, K.K. Joshi (Kumbhkaran Joshi) has told to the petitioner that he could provide job on the post of Shiksha Karmi with the acquaintance of Sanjeev Kumar Thakur and Uttam Kumar Kurre and he promised that he has approached in Mantralaya as well as the District Education Office, therefore he can be provided job to the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Karmi, for which, the petitioner has to pay Rs. 8,00,000/- to accused Sanjeev Kumar Thakur and Uttam Kumar Kurre. On the basis of above assurance, the petitioner has given Rs. 2,00,000/- on 11.11.2014, Rs. 3,00,000/- on 30.12.2015 and Rs. 3,00,000/- on 29.01.2016. In this regard, accused K.Κ. Joshi has executed an agreement on 11.11.2014. Despite receiving the aforesaid amount, accused K.Κ. Joshi has not provided job to the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Karmi, therefore the petitioner demanded money back, on which, accused K.K. Joshi has executed another agreement on 13.02.2017, admitting that he will repay the amount of Rs. 3 8,00,000/- to the petitioner and given a cheque dated 24.05.2017 to the petitioner. Subsequently the said cheque has been dishonoured and the complaint to this effect is pending before the JMFC, Durg. The petitioner lodged written complaint before the police authorities for committing of fraud and cheating by the accused, but the police did not register the offence, therefore the petitioner filed complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the learned JMFC, Durg for registration of offence under Sections 420, 467 & 468 of IPC against the accused persons. The petitioner examined himself CW-1, Gopal Prasad CW-2, Praveen Kosre CW-3, Holeshwar Banjare CW-4 and Dani Banjare CW-5. 4. After recording preliminary statements, the learned trial Court found that the offence under Section 420/34 of IPC made out against accused Sanjeev Kumar Thakur, Uttam Kurre and Kumbhakaran Joshi and vide order dated 25.01.2018, the learned trial Court registered the case under Section 420/34 of IPC against accused Sanjeev Kumar Thakur, Uttam Kurre and Kumbhakaran Joshi. 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.01.2018, accused Uttam Kurre and Kumbhakaran Joshi preferred revisions before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durg. After appreciating the evidence and material available on record, vide impugned order dated 27.09.2018, the leaned revisional Court has allowed the revisions and set-aside the order dated 25.01.2018 passed by learned trial Court and directed the trial Court to decide the case 4 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Being aggrieved by the same, the complainant has filed this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 27.09.2018 is bad in law, perverse, erroneous and without any authority or jurisdiction in law, therefore liable to be set-aside/quashed. The learned revisional Court has committed serious erred of law in setting aside the order of taking cognizance passed by the trial Court and he has further committed grave error of law in remanding the case with a direction to consider the agreement dated 11.11.2014 & 13.02.2017 and written report made before the Superintendent of police, Durg on 22.05.2017 & 10.07.2017 as well as complaint case pending under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, whereas the said aspect can be considered at the time of evidence and passing final judgment. He further submits that the learned revisional Court has failed to appreciate that the accused persons have dishonestly received Rs. 8,00,000/- from the petitioner for providing job on the post of Shiksha Karmi, but no such job was provided to the petitioner. He further submits that the learned revisional Court has failed to appreciate that there are sufficient material to indicate that the accused persons have dishonestly induced the petitioner deceived to deliver Rs. 8,00,000/- to the respondents, thereby committed offence under Section 420 of IPC. The learned revisional Court has also failed to appreciate that the learned trial Court has taken the cognizance of offence under Section 420/34 5 of IPC against the accused on the basis of preliminary statements and prima facie evidence adduced before it. He relied uopn the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Shoraj Singh Ahlawat and Ors. vs. State of U.P and Anr” reported in AIR 2013 SUPREME COURT 52. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned judgment passed by the learned revisional Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the documents annexed with petition. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned revisional while allowing the revisions and setting aside the order passed by learned trial Court has held that as far as the taking of cognizance against the revisionist/accused K.K. Joshi under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC is concerned, it is pertinent to note that a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is already pending against him in relation to a cheque of Rs. 8 lakhs dated May 24, 2017. The respondent/complainant has submitted the ordersheet of Case No. 5127/17 'Ajay Kumar Chaturvedi vs. K.K. Joshi' pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, along with a true copy of the application under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Notably, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, in its impugned order dated January 25, 2018, 6 has not addressed this pending case or made any inquiry in this regard. Moreover, given the prima facie similarity between the facts of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act case and the present complaint considering the respondent /complainant's own admission of the pending case, it appears that the benefit of the judgment presented on behalf of Sangeetaben Mahendra Bhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and others may not be applicable to the respondent/complainant and directed to decide the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the findings recorded by the revisional Court and the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the revisional Court while setting aside the order dated 25.01.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg has not committed any illegality or infirmity. I do not find any merit in this petition. 11.Accordingly, the petition being bereft of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal