1 2025:CGHC:56553 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1782 of 2019 State Bank Of India Through Regional Office, Racpc Byron Bazar, P.S. Civil Line Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Through Sandeep Prakash Aged About 44 Years S/o Shri Chandra Prakash Verma Assistatnt General Manager, Sbi Racpc Byron Bazar, Raipur, Chhattisgrah. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.- Civil Lines, S.H.O. Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Birendra Singh S/o Omprakash Singh, Presently Detained In Central Jail, Raipur, Through Jail Superintendent Central Jail, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocates. For Respondents/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 20.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. P. R. Patankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC being aggrieved with order dated 12.04.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur, in Criminal Revision No. 112/2019, arising out of the order dated 22.10.2018 whereby the learned JMFC has dismissed the application under Section 156(3) of CrPC filed by the petitioner. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant had filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. submitting inter alia that the State Bank of India is a Banking Company under State Bank of India Act, 1955 having one of its branches at Byron Bazar, Raipur (C.G.). It was submitted that one Shri Birendra Singh S/o Om Prakash Singh had taken a vehicle loan of Rs.9,00,000/- for purchase of Hyundai Car and the same was sanctioned on 30.08.12. While obtaining the loan Birendra Singh had shown his address as House No.534/20 Nirmal Kunj, Santoshi Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) and informed that he in business of selling fruits and dry fruits in the name of M/s Anand Fruits and Dry Fruits. He also submitted his three years Income Tax Return and also submitted photocopy of registration certificate of Commercial Tax Department, Raipur dated 06.11.09 and photocopy of his current account maintained at Dena Bank, Raipur and also submitted audit report of Gupta Agrawal & Co. Chartered Accountants for the year 2011-12 on the basis of which loan was approved and necessary loan documents were executed and thereafter he purchased Hyundai Verna SX Car from Shivnath Hyundai, Raipur. 4. Birendra Singh repaid the loan till December 2013 and thereafter made defaults in repayment of the loan and after contacting him, he was not found at his given address and it was also found that he is detained at Central Jail, Raipur. Thereafter, a detailed enquiry was conducted related to his documents submitted by him and upon enquiry it was found that his income tax returns, papers related to current account in Dena Bank, electricity bill, registration certificate of Commercial Tax Department are all forged documents and a criminal conspiracy has 3 been committed. Thereafter on 05.05.14 a written complaint was submitted before the S.H.O., P.S. Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) and copy was also sent to Superintendent of Police, Raipur, but no F.I.R. was registered and investigation was also not done relating to the offence as per the written complaint. as per the guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India to all Banking Companies wherein public money is being siphoned or embezzlement is made the F.I.R. has to be lodged for taking appropriate action against the culprits and accordingly a written complaint was lodged at P.S. Civil Lines, Raipur but no F.I.R. was registered nor any investigation was done hence an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was filed along with an affidavit of the then A.G.M. of S.B.I. RACPC Raipur, Branch. 5. The learned J.M.F.C. called for a report from P.S. Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.). On 12.10.18, the S.H.O. P.S. Civil Lines, Raipur submitted a report to the J.M.F.C. Raipur (C.G.), On 22.10.18 the learned J.M.F.C. after going through the report dismissed the application filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant recording that there is no evidence on record to show that the documents submitted by the accused Virendra Singhania are forged and fabricated. The applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.18 passed by J.M.F.C. Raipur preferred a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Raipur on 06.02.19. By impugned order dated 12.04.19 the revision preferred by the applicant has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge upholding the order passed by J.M.F.C. Raipur. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.04.19 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed upholding the order passed by J.M.F.C. 4 Raipur. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned J.M.F.C. as well as session judge ought to have considered that the petitioner Bank is dealing with public money and if a fraud is pointed out then the police should register F.I.R. and investigate the offence but in the present case despite written complaint made to police station civil lines no F.I.R. was registered hence the need of filing application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. had arisen. It is further submitted that the learned J.M.F.C. as well as Sessions Court ought to have considered that when there was default in payment of loan and it came to the knowledge that Birendra Singh has been detained in Central Jail, Raipur a detailed enquiry relating to papers submitted by Birendra Singh for obtaining the loan was done wherein it was found that the RTI returns, electricity bills, registration certificate etc are all forge and fake documents. It is further submitted that the police in hasty manner without conducting the detailed enquiry had submitted a report before J.M.F.C. that the complainant is not co-operating in the matter resulting into dismissal of application filed by Bank under Section 156(3) of Cr.Р.С. Hence, the impugned orders is liable to be set aside, and the Police of Police Station Civil Lines be directed to register the FIR and investigate the offence. 7. Learned State counsel opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that learned JMFC after going through the records dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and came to conclusion that there is no evidence on record to show that the documents submitted 5 by the accused Virendra Singh are forged and fabricated, and the revisional Court vide impugned order dated 12.04.2019 as affirmed the order of the learned JMFC, and there is no any jurisdictional error warranting interference of this Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the documents annexed with the instant petition, it transpires that no good ground has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner in the present case on merits, and learned JMFC after going through the records dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and came to conclusion that there is no evidence on record to show that the documents submitted by the accused Virendra Singh are forged and fabricated, and the revisional Court vide impugned order dated 12.04.2019 as affirmed the order of the learned JMFC, and there is no any infirmity or jurisdictional error warranting interference of this Court. 10. Accordingly, the instant CRMP being devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar