1 2025:CGHC:58569 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3665 of 2025 Rajkumar Chanchalani S/o Late Kherajmal Chanchalani Aged About 72 Years R/o Parwani Complex, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Complainant) ... Petitioner(s) versus Sunil Sahu Partner Of M/s. Nivesh Wel, Office Address At 3rd Floor, Shubham Corporates, Telibandha, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Accused) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 03/12/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present matter is heard finally. 2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 528 read with Section 400 of BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.08.2025 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, District-Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 394/2024 by which the criminal revision filed by petitioner has 2 been dismissed and order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the learned JMFC, Raipur, District- Raipur passed in Case No. Unregistered/2023, by which the learned trial Court has dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint under Sections 156(3) CrPC was filed by the petitioner against the respondent before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 406, 418, 420, 426 & 427 of IPC inter-alia on the alleging that the firm of the respondent develops, sells land, constructs buildings and develops townships. The accused’s firm has developed land in a residential project called Floral City in village Dunda Sebahar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, and constructed and sold duplexes of various categories and sizes. The complainant/petitioner booked an east-facing Floral Tulip duplex on 17.09.2011, which is being constructed on 1125 square feet of land with a total super built-up area of 1875 square feet. On 17.09.2011 the complainant/ petitioner paid an earnest money of Rs. 15,00,000 to the accused/respondent for the duplex along with a booking acknowledgement which is handwritten and signed on the letterhead/ pad of Nivesh Wel. When the complainant asked the accused to execute the registered agreement for the sale of duplex, the accused told the complainant that the building would be completed within a few months, and the remaining amount would be transferred directly 3 at the time of registration of the sale deed. Therefore, there was no need for an agreement at this time. Even after this, the accused did not complete the construction of the duplex for several years. In 2020 after 9 years, the complainant came to know that the duplex had been fraudulently and deliberately sold to another person for Rs. 60,00,000/- and when the complainant requested that the accused to registered the duplex in his favor, the accused stated that the duplex is already sold and when the complainant asked the accused to return the earnest money of Rs. 15,00,000, he said that the amount would be returned to the complainant in installments at the rate of 18 percent interest, to which the complainant agreed. While returning the fifteen lakh rupees taken by the complainant in 2011 in a total of 24 installments, now only Rs. 20,00,000/- have been returned to the complainant and out of the said Rs. 20,00,000/-, amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- were paid by the accused to the complainant through money orders and Rs. 12,00,000/- in cash and the remaining amount of Rs. 24,00,000/- the accused refused to pay to the complainant, whereas the accused should have paid the complainant Rs. 44,70,000 at the rate of 18% interest from 2011 to the present date. In this regard, the complainant had lodged a complaint in the Civil Lines Police Station, Raipur, in which the said complaint was dismissed under Section 155 CrPC. Therefore, the complainant has preferred an application under section 156(3) of CRPC so that cognizance can be taken against 4 the accused under Sections 420, 406, 418, 426, 427 of the Indian Penal Code and pass an order to punish the accused. ANNEXURE - P/3 is the copy of complaint dated 23.01.2023 along with documents. That, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) after hearing the petitioner came to the conclusion that the complainant booked an East Facing Floral Tulip Duplex, with a total super built-up area of 1875 square feet, in the residential project named Floral City in village Dunda Sebahar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, on 17.09.2011 for purchase. Regarding the duplex described by the complainant, Rs. 15,00,000/ - was given as earnest money to the accused on 17.09.20211. Despite this, the respondent sold the said property to some other person and promised to return the earnest money along with 18% interest, but paid only Rs. 20 lakhs and did not pay the interest amount of Rs. 24,70,000/-. A complaint application has been filed in this regard in which the respondent had agreed to pay a total amount of Rs. 32,40,000/-including 18% interest to the complainant on demand of earnest money, under which Rs. 20 lakhs have been given by the respondent and Rs. 12,40,000/- has been refused. A complaint regarding the above was made to the Honorable RERA Raipur, in which it has been decided to pay Rs. 10,52,000/- to the respondent. From bare perusal of the documents attached with the said application, prima facie there is no need for further in-depth investigation in relation to the said application and to direct for registration of crime. 5 Therefore, the application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. (Annexure - P/2). That, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) the petitioner herein preferred a Revision under section 438 R/w. Section 440 of BNSS, 2023 before Learned 2nd Additional Session Judge, Raipur (C.G.) on 24.09.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure.Tthe learned Magistrate has grossly erred in rejecting the complaint under Section 156(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate has erred in passing the impugned order on incorrect facts, the findings recorded by the magistrate are based on conjuncture and surmises. The learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate that at the time of registration of a complaint only the prima facie case has to be considered and at that stage Magistrate cannot expect the material for conviction. That, the learned Session Court has failed to appreciate that the magistrate while deciding the application under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot go beyond his jurisdiction to examine the complaint and materials in details. The only aspect which the learned magistrate has to keep in mind that the appreciation of the complaint as well as the statement has to be made on prima facie manner. That, it is the matter of investigation and enquiry whether 6 the said act has been committed by proposed accused/ respondents or not. The Revisional court had failed to appreciate the fact that by rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Mahasamund (C.G.) has caused grave injustice to the petitioner. That, the learned courts below have failed to appreciate the statement recorded which clearly prima facie. 5. Learned State Counsel raised an objection to the present petition and has prayed for its dismissal on the ground that the same is baseless and not necessary for the just adjudication of the case. 6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. From the material available on record, it is evident that the allegation regarding receipt of an amount of 15,00,000/- is not ₹ supported by any cogent evidence. There is no mention of the alleged amount in the duplex number, lane, or township, nor is there any documentary material such as bank transaction details, receipts, or other admissible evidence to substantiate the claim that the said amount was ever paid. Even the contents of the alleged letter-head merely reflect suspicion regarding monetary transactions and do not establish actual receipt of money. 8. The police report also clearly indicates that the said letter-head was issued only as a quotation in respect of purchase of a house and not as an acknowledgment of receipt of any amount. There is 7 no material on record to show that any agreement was executed after receipt of money or that the terms of such an agreement were violated. No evidence has been brought on record to demonstrate that the complainant was deceived or that any financial loss was suffered as a result of inducement, deception, or dishonest intention on the part of the respondent. 9. It is a settled principle of law that for constituting an offence of cheating, it must be established that the accused had dishonest or fraudulent intention at the inception of the transaction. In the present case, neither inducement nor deception by fraud, cheating, or dishonesty has been established from the evidence available on record. The material placed before the Court does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating. 10. The learned Trial Court has, therefore, rightly held that no prima facie offence is made out and has rightly rejected the application. This Court finds that the impugned order has been passed after due appreciation of the facts and law applicable to the case. No illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error has been pointed out warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 27.08.2024. 11. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima