1 2025:CGHC:49347 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2996 of 2025 1 - Rajesh Jain S/o Late Ashok Kumar Jain, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Ashok Stationary Mart, Shop No. 195, A-Market, Sector-6, P.S. Bhilai Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Kamalchand Jain S/o Late Hukumchand Jain, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Shop No. 723, C-Market, Sector-6, Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - Bhagchand Jain S/o Late Hukumchand Jain, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Block No. 2/D, Street-9, Sector-6, Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - Ashok Kumar Jain S/o Late Hukumchand Jain, Aged About 50 Years, Block No. 3/E, Street-33, Sector-6, Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh … Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Rathod, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 25-09-2025 1. The present CRMP has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 against the order dated 18-07-2025 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Revision No.271/2024 whereby the criminal revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The subject matter in brief is that the petitioner filed a complaint case under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 211 and 34 of the IPC against the proposed accused persons before the Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.10.06 19:03:13 +0530 2 learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg with the allegation that there was a shop No.198 situated at Sector 6, A market Bhilai, District Durg which is in the name of Late Sudha Jain who is mother of the complainant. The proposed accused No.3 had entered into an agreement to purchase the said shop on 05-02-2005 for the consideration of Rs.30,00,000/- and the agreement was executed. 3. On 31-05-2006 second agreement in the form of Part II was executed between the parties. It was alleged that in various transactions, total consideration of the shop was paid to Late Sudha Jain. On 14-02-2005 the proposed accused No.1 Kamalchand Jain had advanced a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant which was repaid through cheque No.307121 on 09-03-2005. It was also alleged in the complaint that another cheque no.307122 was obtained by the proposed accused No.1 Kamalchand Jain from the complainant against the aforesaid transaction and got it dishonoured on 13-04-2006 from the payee bank and prosecuted a complaint Case No.1331/2010 against the present petitioner in which the present petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court and he paid the final amount on 30-10-2010 before the learned trial Court. However, by the appellate Court the present petitioner was acquitted. The order of acquittal was challenged by the proposed accused No.1 Kamalchand Jain before this Court in Acquittal Appeal No.44/2012 which was allowed on 07- 09-2022 and upheld the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and by setting aside the judgment passed by the appellate Court. The present petitioner has challenged the judgment passed by this Court in Acquittal Appeal No.44/2012 in SLP (Cr.) No.011038/2022 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in which the effect and operation of the judgment dated 07- 09-2022 is stayed and the ordered to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- before the Registry of this Court. It is also alleged in the complaint that proposed accused No.1 Kamalchand Jain has filed a civil suit for recovery of 3 Rs.6,95,000/- against Smt. Sudha Jain before the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Durg in Civil Suit No.48/2005 in which a decree was passed on 30-04-2009 in favour of the proposed accused No.1 Kamalchand Jain. During pendency of its execution proceeding Smt. Sudha Jain has died and the present petitioner is impleaded as legal heir of Sudha Jain and the execution proceeding is pending. It was also alleged that the proposed accused No.3 Ashok Kumar Jain got the transferred amount of Rs.8,00,000/- along with its interest in his bank account which was jointly deposited by the proposed accused No.3 Ashok Kumar Jain and the complainant and withdrew the same from the bank and thereby the accused persons have committed offence, cheated the complainant by forging the documents and using the forged documents as genuine. 4. The complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 27-09-2024 for want of sufficient evidence as provided under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. by holding that the complainant could not prima facie establish the ingredients of cheating or deceiving to deliver any property or intentionally induced the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and no offence prima facie is made out by the complainant. The order dated 27-09- 2024 passed by the learned trial Court was challenged by the petitioner before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge Durg in Criminal Revision No.271/2024 which was also dismissed by the learned revisional Court vide order dated 18-07-2025 which is under challenge in the present criminal revision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are sufficient ingredients of cheating and deceiving the petitioner to deliver the amount, however, the learned trial Court has mis-appreciated the evidence produced by the complainant and dismissed the complaint. There was intention of proposed accused persons from its inception to cheat the complainant, for 4 which they have made various transactions with the complainant and his mother. The entire contents of the complaint clearly disclosed the commission of cognizable offence and despite registration of the complaint case, the same has been dismissed by the learned courts below. The withdrawal of the amount from pre-mature fixed deposit by the proposed accused No.3 alone which was deposited in the bank in the joint name of the petitioner and the proposed accused No.3 prima facie established the offence of cheating and creating forged documents, yet the true aspect of the case has not been considered by the learned courts below and have dismissed the complaint case. Therefore, the impugned orders may be set aside and the complaint case filed by the petitioner may be directed to be registered and issue process to the accused persons. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. From perusal of the complaint and the order dated 27-09-2024 passed by the learned trial Court, it transpires that before the learned trial Court the complainant has recorded the statement of complainant himself, D.R. Gupta, Pratap Kumar Bannerjee and the learned trial Court has also called a report from P.S. Bhilai Nagar, District Durg. After considering the police report dated 20-02-2023 submitted by P.S. Bhilai Nagar, District Durg and also after having gone through the statement of the witnesses of the complainant the learned trial court has found that there is no ingredients of the offence of cheating or forgery of the documents prima facie proved by the complainant by the material produced by him. The learned trial Court has also considered the civil suit filed by the proposed accused No.1 Kamalchand Jain for recovery of Rs.6,95,000/- against Smt. Sudha Jain and its decision in favour of Kamalchand Jain. After considering the entire facts and material produced before it and also the provision of Section 415, 420 of the IPC the trial court did not find any sufficient evidence to register complaint case and has 5 dismissed the complaint for want of sufficient evidence as provided under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. 8. The learned revisional Court has also considered the entire transaction as stated in the complaint memo, pendency of the earlier case for dishonour of cheque in favour of the proposed accused No.1 Kamalchand Jain for which the SLP (Cr.) was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, further, the nature of transaction between the parties, decision of the civil suit No.4B/2005 in favour of proposed accused No.1 Kamalchand Jain against Smt. Sudha Jain, mother of the petitioner and also agreement executed between them. The learned revisional Court has also considered that from the material produced by the complainant it could not establish that it is a case of forgery of document or cheating. However, it transpires that there was dispute between the parties from the earlier occasion and while considering the provisions of Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 9. After considering the entire material produced by the petitioner and also after having gone through the orders passed by the learned trial Court as well as the learned revisional Court, this Court is also of the opinion that both the courts below have correctly decided the case dismissing the complaint case filed by the petitioner for want of sufficient evidence as there is lack of sufficient material with respect to the offence of cheating or forgery of documents in view of the long and and various litigations and various transactions between the parties. Therefore, this Court does not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned orders. Accordingly, the present CRMP is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil