1 2025:CGHC:14523 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1093 of 2025 1 - Dharanidhar Vajpeyi S/o Lt. Late Leela Dhar Vajpeyi Aged About 66 Years R/o Ramleela Maidan, Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 26/03/2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 against the order/judgment dated 18.02.2025 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Criminal Revision No. 125/2024 arising out of the Criminal Case No. 443/2018 wherein the learned Trial Court has framed the charge for offence under Section 384 of IPC and Section 4 of 2 Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937. 2. The brief facts of the case is that on 18.04.2018 Constable No. 969 filed a written report against the petitioner stating that I am posted in the reserve center, Raigarh when my mother was sick I took a loan of Rs. 1 lakh from the present petitioner for treatment of my mother in the year 2015 for which the petitioner took his and his mother’s ATM Card & Passbook as a security. He repayed the amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner but he is not returning their ATM Card & Passbook stating that he only returned the principal amount and not interest amount. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner is registered money lender under the Chhattisgarh Sahukar Adhiniyam, 2005 and on the date of registration of offence, the application for renewal of license was pending before the concerned authority. He further contended that the order passed by the learned court below is perverse and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the contention of the counsel for the petitioner and contended that the trial court has rightly passed the order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Section 383 of IPC provides as under: “Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits “extortion”. 7. In this case, it appears that the petitioner puts the victim intentionally in fear of injury and thereby dishonestly induces the victim to deliver his valuable security, i.e., ATM Card, Pass book, Cheque book. 3 8. Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937 provides as under: “Whoever molests, or abets the molestation of, any debtor for the recovery of a debt owed by him to his creditor shall be punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.” 9. On the date of incident, Sahukari license of the petitioner was expired. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner has applied for renewal before the expiry of the license. However, at the time incident, licence was not renewed by the competent authority. Therefore, prima facie case has been made out. 10. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, there is no illegality or perversity committed by the trial court as well as revisional court and there is no jurisdictional error. 11. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all his defences before the trial court during trial. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima