1 2025:CGHC:8700 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 605 of 2025 1 - Shrawan Kumar Agarwal S/o Late Shri Prahlad Rai Agrawal Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Pendra, P.S. And Tehsil - Pendra, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Madan Lal Pandey S/o Late Shri Suraj Prasad Pandey Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Patgawaan, P.S. And Tehsil Pendra, District - Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.). 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pendra, District - Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 19/02/2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 15.01.2025 passed by 2 the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pendraroad, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, C.G. passed in Criminal Revision No. 03/2023 whereby the order dated 19.12.2022 passed by the learned JMFC, Pendra Road, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, C.G. has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back for fresh adjudication. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Non-Applicant No.1 had filed an Application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC before the Learned Trial Court contending that the Applicant had executed the sale deed dated 9/12/2020 in favor of the wife of the Non-Applicant no.1 of the land which did not belong to him. An oral agreement was arrived at between the parties that the Applicant will sell 2200 sq.ft of land adjacent to marwahi road and the rest 61 dismil of land behind that land for the sale consideration Rs.27 lakhs. On the basis of the said agreement the Non-Applicant no.1 transferred the said amount of Rsd.27 lakhs to the Applicant on various dates. It has been further averred that the after repeated intimations the Applicant executed the sale deed for 2200 sq.ft of land adjacent to Pendra Marwahi Main Road. It has been further alleged that after the mutation proceedings when the Non- Applicant went on to take possession of the said land, the neighboring farmers disputed the ownership of the Non-Applicant no.1 on the said land and after such incident it was found by the Non-Applicant No.1 that the said land is not adjacent to the Pendra-Marwahi main road and it was further alleged that the 3 Applicant has taken Rs.27 lakhs (entire sale consideration amount) and has executed the sale deed with respect to 5 dismil of land and other portion remains for execution. Based on the afore said contentions the Non-Applicant No.1 approached the Police Station and made a complaint, however the FIR was not registered as the same being the non-cognizable offence and a report under Section 155 of the CrPC was registered. Thereafter the Non-Applicant had moved an Application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC before the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, which came to be rejected by a well reasoned order dated 19/12/2022(Annexure -A/2). Upon such dismissal the Non- Applicant No.1 preferred a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pendraroad, the copy of the same is filed herewith as ANNEXURE-A/3, and the well reasoned finding of the Learned Judicial Magistrate was interfered with and the order passed by the Learned JMFC was set aside vide the impugned order dated 15/1/2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order impugned is bad in the eyes of law. He further contended that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is well reasoned order as the ingredients of Offence under Section 420 of IPC is not fulfilled hence, the same cannot be taken cognizance of and therefore, the application under Section 156(3) was rightly rejected but the same has been interfered with by the learned Revisional Court and same is liable to be quashed. As per the 4 allegations made in the application it is apparent on the fact of the record that it is a civil dispute and no criminal act is made out against the present applicant. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Perusal of record shows that respondent no. 1 (Madan Lal Pandey) has filed an application under Section 156(3) before JMFC, Pendra road which was dismissed on 19.12.2022 stating that in the present matter the applicant have the civil remedy for specific performance of the agreement and cancellation of sale deed on the ground of fraud/misrepresentation. In view of the above discussion, the court is of the opinion that the applicant has failed to establish prima-facie ingredients of cognizable offence against the non-applicant no. 01. The application filed by the applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 6. Thereafter, the respondent no. 1 (Madan Lal Pandey) filed criminal revision against the order of JMFC, Pendra road, wherein the learned Sessions Court vide order dated 15.01.2025 has held that prima facie it appears essential to investigate the crime of a cognizable case. Reaching any conclusion without investigation does not seem appropriate for serving justice. The Trial Court should have taken appropriate action in the context of the provisions of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. which is lacking in the case. The learned Sessions Court remanded back the matter to the trial Court for consideration of the application under Section 5 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned Sessions Court has not passed any order against the petitioner. It has only remanded the matter back to the trial court for reconsideration of the application under Section 156(3) of CrPC filed by the respondent herein. Therefore, the order passed by the Sessions Judge is neither illegal nor perverse and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. 8. Accordingly, the present Cr.M.P. deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima