1 / 4 2025:CGHC:56032 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3480 of 2025 Suresh Gautam S/o Rambharosa Gautam Aged About 44 Years R/o Godhi, Police Station Mandir Hasaud, Tehsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Ishwari Prashad Verma D/o Lakhanlal Verma 2 - Dakesh Kumar Verma S/o Ishwari Prashad Verma Both above Respondents R/o Village Kasahi, Police Station And Tehsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For State /Respondent No.3 : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 18/11/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.11.27 10:36:16 +0530 2 / 4 1] That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 10.09.2025, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in the Criminal Revision No.394/2023 in the interest of justice and allow the application under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the petitioner. 2] That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, may kindly be awarded. 3. The present petitioner by way of this present petition is challenging the order dated 10.09.2025, passed by the Learned 1th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in the Criminal Revision no. 394/2023 wherein the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 08.06.2023 passed in Unregistered Case pending before Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) has been rejected. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner while working as a supervisor in the year 2015-16, he came into contact with respondent No. 1. On 15.08.2018, respondent No.1 told that a house in Village Patan, allegedly owned by Suresh Mishra, was available for sale for Rs. 5,00,000/-, and later, in December 2019, claimed to have paid Rs. 86,000/- as advance and adjusted a loan of Rs. 10,827/- towards the sale consideration, without providing any proof despite repeated requests. Respondent No.1 then requested the petitioner to deposit the remaining amount into the bank account of his son, respondent No.2, assuring that the funds would be paid to the house owner. Relying on these assurances, the petitioner transferred a total of Rs. 3,06,827/ between 27.03.2021 and 21.04.2021 through RTGS and cash payments. Despite 3 / 4 repeated demands, no sale agreement was executed, and the petitioner later discovered that the actual owner, Hemant Mishra, had neither agreed to sell the property nor received any payment from respondents No.1 and 2. On 17.03.2021, when the petitioner demanded a refund, respondent No.1 quarreled with him after which the petitioner submitted a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Raipur. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, seeking registration of an FIR under Sections 420, 452, 395, 467, 468, 471, and 34 IPC, which was rejected for lack of documentary proof. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.394/2023 before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 10.09.2025, holding that no illegality or irregularity existed in the trial court's order. Hence this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has very specifically stated in his application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. regarding transfer of amount of Rs.1,55,000/-. She would next contend that the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. disclosing cognizable offences cannot be dismissed merely on the ground of lack of documentary evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that the instant petition may be allowed. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the impugned orders are well merited which do not call for any interference by this Court. 4 / 4 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 8. Perusal of the record makes it crystal clear that there is no document filed by the petitioner before the trial Court with regard to transaction of amount of Rs.1,55,000/- through RTGS in the account of respondent. It is also pertinent to mention here that the nature of transaction is purely a civil dispute between the parties. Therefore, the learned trial Court as well as the revisional Court has passed the appropriate orders. In the considered opinion of this Court there is no illegality nor any jurisdictional error committed by both the Courts i.e. the trial Court as well as the revisional Court. 9. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and hereby dismissed. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu