1 2025:CGHC:55344 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2814 of 2023 Md. Aalamgir S/o Late Samshuddin Aged About 51 Years R/o Ward No. 11, P.S. And Tahsil - Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Koresa Khatun W/o Shabbir Aged About 40 Years R/o Shrigarh, P.S. Ambikapur, District - Sarguja (C.G.) 2 - Shamima Khatun W/o Ramjan Aged About 45 Years R/o Ajirma, P.S. Jainagar, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Nikhil Sahu, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 13/11/2025 1. With the counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 03.07.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, 2 Balrampur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj, (C.G) in Criminal Revision No. 18/2023 whereby dismissed the criminal revision and affirmed the order passed by C.J.M, Ramanujganj, in Complaint Case No.18/2023 whereby complaint case has been dismissed. 3. Brief facts of this case are that the applicant/complainant filed complaint case for the offence under Sections 420, 34 of IPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class against the non-applicant/accused inter alia alleged that they cheated the applicant by taken the advance amount for the sale of land but later on sale deed has not been executed by the non applicant and thereby deceit the applicant and due to that applicant constrained to file complaint case before the Trial Court for registration of offence under section 420/34 of IPC, but the learned Trial Court after the preliminary enquiry dismissed the complaint case filed by applicant thereafter aggrieved to that applicant filed Criminal Revision before the Sessions Court and now the Appellate Court Below also dismissed the criminal revision filed by the applicant. The non applicant deliberately and intentionally concealed the fact that their name are not recorded in the revenue record pertaining to the land for which they executed the agreement for sale and after obtaining the advance amount for sale of land they never turned up for execution of sale deed and for registry of the said land in favour of complainant and thereby non applicant with criminal conspiracy committed the offence of forgery with applicant and for that applicant made complaint before the concerned S.H.O, Police Station-Ramanujganj and also to Superintendent of Police, Balrampur, 3 but they were not taken any action so the complaint case has been filed. The CJM, Balrampur by order dated 27.02.2023 dismissed the complaint case filed by the applicant even though cognizable offence has been committed by the non applicant and for that after registration of FIR it is required by the police to do investigation and collect all the material evidence but in the present case no such procedure has been followed. The lower appellate Court without going to the merit of case in mechanical manner dismissed the revision preferred by the applicant against the order passed by CJM, Balrampur which is erroneous in law. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that despite establishing of prima facie offence u/s 420/34 against the non-applicant, learned both court below have committed grave illegality of fact and law by not directing to lodge FIR and for carrying on fair investigation into the matter. The learned CJM has committed grave illegality by holding that the matter is pertaining to civil nature and therefore no criminal offence would be made out against the non applicants. He further contended that the non applicant even admitted the fact that they were received the advance payment for sale of land to applicant even though their name is not recorded in the revenue record for the land in question. The learned lower Appellate Court as well as Trial Court failed to appreciate the preliminary evidence produced by the applicant and further police report which establish the fact that applicant has been cheated by the non applicant as they were playing fraud taken the advance payment for sale 4 of land which itself implied that the fraud has been committed by the non-applicant by executing agreement to sale deed even though they know that they were not the owner of said land and there name is also not recorded in the revenue record for the above said land. In order to prevent miscarriage of criminal justice if it considers necessary, direct investigation de novo, and the learned Court Below ought to appreciate the fact the police has not investigated the case properly and due to that the real culprit will not be punished and further applicant will be deny to get justice. To ensure that a "proper investigation" takes place in the sense of a fair and just investigation by the police, which such Magistrate is to supervise Article 21 of the Constitution of India mandates that all powers necessary, which may also be incidental or implied, are available to the Magistrate to ensure a proper investigation after doubt, would include the ordering of further investigation. 5. In the matter of Joshinder Yadav Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 42, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that role of Presiding Judge in criminal trial vigilance to ensure fair trial. The criminal Court must be alert, it must oversee the actions of prosecution and investigating agency and, in case it suspects foul play, it must use its vast powers and frustrate any attempt to set at naught, a genuine prosecution. The said logic would apply for both the prosecution and the accused. If certain further investigation is carried out, irrespective of its result whether it supports the accused or the prosecution to demonstrate the fact of fair trial the police is required to place the same before the Magistrate. It cannot be 5 stated that for time immemorial that can be withheld. Therefore, it is prayed that the Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order/judgment dated 03.07.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G in Criminal Revision No. 18/2023 and order dated 27.02.2023 passed by CJM, Ramanujganj, in unregistered criminal complaint case. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supports impugned orders and submits that impugned orders are well merited and have been passed after considering the entire material available on record therefore, it is not a case to set aside of the impugned orders, hence, the same may be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, the impugned orders passed by the Courts below and other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 8. On perusal of the record, I have found that the agreement executed between the parties for sale and purchase of the land and amount of Rs.3,75,000/- has been given to the Respondents by the petitioner in advance. The respondents have not executed the sale deed as per agreement. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the complaint before the concerned police station and the police has registered the case. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the complaint under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC before the JMFC, Ramanujganj which has been 6 dismissed on the ground of there is a civil dispute between the parties, there appears to be no basis for taking cognizance against the respondents under Section 420 of IPC. Then, being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner filed the revision before the Sessions Court, Ramanujganj. The learned Sessions Judge has also dismissed the revision on the ground of there is a civil dispute between the parties and the order passed by the trial Court is just and proper. 9. On perusal of the record, it is crystal clear that there is a dispute between the parties to purchase of land and it is purely civil in nature, therefore, the trial Court as well as revisional Court have rightly passed the orders impugned. 10. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality and infirmity in the orders passed by the trial Court as well as the revisional Court and there is no any ground to set aside the orders passed by the Courts below. 11. Accordingly, the instant CrMP is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant