1 2025:CGHC:56893 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3510 of 2025 1 - Vijay Ramkhyani S/o Ashok Kumar Ramkhyani Aged About 41 Years R/o Behind Chhabda Lodge, Lalbagicha Ward, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ganesh Sachdev S/o Sudamamal Sachdev Aged About 57 Years R/o Amapara Ward, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari, C.G. 2 - Smt. Deepa Nihlani W/o Nandlal Nihlani Aged About 52 Years R/o Bhramhanpara Ward, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 3 - Chandra Kumar Keswani S/o Late Arjundas Keswani Aged About 57 Years R/o Shrinath Colony, Haraftarai Road, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 4 - Vikki Matwani S/o Madhavdas Manvani Aged About 37 Years R/o Banspara Ward, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, Panel lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 24/11/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present petition is heard finally at motion stage. 2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari (C.G.) in which the learned JMFC took cognizance of the application submitted by the respondent no. 1 under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The applicant assailed the order dated 22.04.2022 before the learned 2nd Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari which was dismissed vide order dated 25.07.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the learned courts below is contrary to law and is liable to be quashed/set-aside. He further submits that the learned court below failed to appreciate that all the evidence shows that the 3 present applicant has no role to play in the alleged commission of offence. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the orders passed by both the Courts below are correct and does not need any interference. Both the Courts below have applied their judicial mind before passing the orders. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 6. Perusal of record shows that the respondent no. 1 has filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari against the respondents under Sections 420, 467, 471, 120-B, 109, 34 of IPC. In this case, respondent no. 1 alleges that that he did not receive the cheque amount for the land sale- purchase transaction made by respondent no. 2 on 13.05.2016 and filed a complaint in the lower court. The petitioner purchased some part of the property from respondent no. 2 Paramanand on 19.10.2016 for Rs. 5,90,000/- paying the full sale amount through cheque no. 347794 issued by Dena Bank, Dhamtari Branch, dated 19.10.2016 and had his name registered in the Nazul Revenue records through a registered sale deed. As the complaint filed by the respondent no. 1 mentions that the amount was distributed amongst themselves and the land was purchased without consideration. 7. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari, vide its order dated 22.04.2022 took cognizance of the case. The said 4 order dated 22.04.2022 was challenged by the petitioner herein before the Second Additional Judge, Dhamtari in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. 8. The learned Additional Judge, Dhamtari vide its order dated stated that the learned trial court, based on available documents and evidence, found sufficient grounds to take action against the accused and registered the complaint and issued a summon for his appearance. Based on the available documents, the manner in which the deceased Parmanand failed to pay the consideration to the complainant for the purchased land and transferred the purchased land in the name of her daughter-in-law Deepa and his wife’s nephew, Vijay Kumar Ramkhayani, within five months from the purchase date, i.e. 13.05.2016, certainly demonstrates his criminal intent. In such circumstances, the actions of the accused cannot be said to be merely civil in nature. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the counsel, this Court is of the considered opinion that prima facie case is made out against the present petitioner, therefore there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the trial court as well as appellate court and the record shows that there is no jurisdictional error. 10. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed on merits. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima