1 2025:CGHC:6038 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 420 of 2025 Ajay Lalwani S/o Late Shri Khanchand Lalwani Aged About 49 Years R/o Ekta Nagar, Gudiyari, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Dharmendra Pujari S/o. Shri Krishna Prakash Pujari (Surname Wrongly Mentioned As Murrari) Age About R/o Z-32a, Dubey Colony, Behind Sai Mandir, Mowa, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocate For State : Ms. Binu Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 03.02.2025 1. The petitioner has preferred this instant petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 10.10.2024 passed by the Fifth Additional Session Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 451 of 2023 (Annexure P/1). 2. The case in brief is such that the petitioner purchased a land at village Amlidih, P.H.N. 46, Revenue Circle Raipur 1, Tehsil and District Raipur from respondent no. 2. In order to get the registration done of the said land, respondent no. 2 asked for making the payment. Petitioner belonging to a well established 2 family, made the payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- in full on 29th of November, 2018. The petitioner has alleged in his complaint that after making the payment in full, he has continuously contacted the respondent no. 2 requesting him to get the registration of sale deed, but the respondent no. 2 has some how ignored him and has not got the registration done. Petitioner doubting the intention of the respondent no. 2 sent a legal notice, however no answer came. Later petitioner discovered that the land in question was already sold to some Sanjeev Sen and another and their mutation case is pending before the court of Tehsildar. Thereafter, petitioner lodged a detailed written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Raipur on 09.04.2021 but to his disappointment, no action was taken in pursuance to the written complaint submitted by the him. Being aggrieved, he preferred a complaint under Section 156(3) of the CrPC which got dismissed by the learned court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur C.G. on 06.07.2023 following the reason that as per the police enquiry report obtained by the court, it is quite vivid that the dispute between the parties is not of criminal nature but it pertains purely of a civil nature and therefore no proceedings could be drawn against the respondent no.2. 3. For the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, a criminal revision was preferred by the petitioner on 10.10.2023 before the Sessions Judge, which got transferred for hearing before the Fifth Additional Session Judge, Raipur bearing Criminal Revision No. 451 of 2023 (Annexure P/6). Learned Judge while admitting the facts and circumstances of the case dismissed the revision on the ground that no document has been presented by the revisionist/complainant mentioning any action taken under Section 154(1) of the Code of CrimiNAL Procedure and Section 154(30 of the Code of Criminal 3 Procedure in the concerned police station in relation to the incident committed with him by the respondent no. 2 and the effect of the action. Based upon the material available on record, no prima facie case was drawn out which could reflect that a cognizable offence has been made out by the respondent no. 2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law, as the court of Judicial Magistrate has failed to consider the complaint of petitioner because after filing of the complaint, the learned Magistrate court called the enquiry report form the concerned Police Station New Rajendra Nagar Raipur for submitting the report regarding the case of petitioner. However, the police authorities only recorded the statement of the petitioner and private respondent and submitted the requisition before the court of Judicial Magistrate, stating that upon inquiry it was revealed that the complainant has not transferred the entire amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- through cheque or rtgs from bank account but the complainant has given the entire amount in cash to respondent no. 2 in presence of witnesses and the respondent no. 2 has denied in his statement to have received any amount, likewise the police submitted the report. He submits that the finding of both the courts below are absolutely unjust and arbitrary, even the court’s below have not considered the aspect that the police has only recorded the statement of petitioner and respondent no. 2 and even the statement of witnesses to the sale deed have not been recorded before dismissing the complaint. Thus the finding of both the courts below must be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for both the respective parties and perused the material available on record as well as the impugned order with utmost circumspection. 7. On perusal of the document Annexure p-02 name entitled sale deed, it transpires that sale amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was received by the respondent no. 2 and sold the property to the petitioner and also possession of the said property has been handed over to the petitioner. But this is an unregistered sale deed. The dispute by and between the parties are purely in civil nature, therefore, learned Magistrate as well as the Revisional court has not committed any jurisdictional error. 8. Hence in the considered opinion of this court, the impugned order so passed by the learned trial court is not illegal and there is no perversity in it. 9. The instant petition being devoid of merits deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza