1 2025:CGHC:767 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 411 of 2018 Hemant Bothra S/o Shri Rishabh Chand Bothra, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Nayapara, Rajim, P.S. Rajim, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Civil and Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh, ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, 2. Khomanlal S/o Kartikram Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Nawagaon (Budehni), Police Station Magarlod, Tahsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Shivali Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.01.2025 1. Heard Ms. Shivali Dubey, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1/State, as well as Mr. D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No.2. 2. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the criminal case No. 1009/2013 filed by respondent No. 2, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurud, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.01.10 16:33:28 +0530 2 Sections 418, 420 and 423 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the respondent No.2 herein filed a complaint before the trial Court for taking cognizance under Sections 418, 420 and 423 of the IPC against the petitioner herein stating therein that the complainant used to take loan from the petitioner for agriculture works. The complainant being in need of money for repaying the loan of tractor and also for agriculture work, contacted the petitioner to sell his land bearing Khasra No. 363 (Part) & 363 (Part), area 0.74 and 1.20 hectare respectively for a valuable consideration of Rs. 4,72,500/-. The petitioner agreed to purchase the said land and in advance paid a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- to the complainant and further agreed to pay the balance amount of consideration at the time of execution and registration of sale deed. It has been alleged that on the date of registration i.e. 08.07.2007, the petitioner assured the complainant that he will pay the balance consideration after reaching home, but he has not paid a single penny and various demands made in this regard by the complainant have fetched no result. It has been further alleged that thereafter in the month of November, 2008 again the petitioner saying that he will pay the entire amount of consideration at once got registered another sale-deed in his favour in respect of ownership land of the complainant admeasuring 0.74 hectare, but this time also he did not pay a single penny to the complainant. It is further alleged that total sum of Rs. 21,53,000/- is due and payable by the petitioner. Despite paying the aforesaid amount, the petitioner got executed a document in his favour in order to avoid payment of balance sale consideration. It has further been alleged that the petitioner had also assured the complainant to clear the loan amount taken by him for the purchase of tractor, but he failed to deposit the loan amount also. No action has been taken on the report lodged by the 3 complainant in this regard by the police on the ground that cognizable offence is not made out the petitioner, leaving no option but to file complaint case. Ultimately, it has been prayed that an enquiry be conducted against the petitioner and be punished. On filing of complaint, the trial Court directed the Police concerned to inquire into the matter and submit report. The Police Station concerned submitted its report on 13.07.2009 mentioning therein that as per statement of the witnesses recorded in the course of enquiry, the petitioner is required to pay a sum of Rs.3 lakhs to the complainant and that no offence has been found to be committed. However, the trial Court ignoring the report of the Police to the effect that no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioner, proceeded to record the statements of the witnesses of complainant's side. Thereafter, the trial Court vide order dated 18.11.2013 registered the offence under Section 417, 420, 423 of IPC against the petitioner and issued notice to him. At this stage it is pertinent to mention here on account of issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the trial Court and after its rejection vide order dated 05.12.2017, anticipatory bail application bearing MCRCA No. 10 pending consideration before this Court. It is most humble and respectful submission of the petitioner that the story put forth by the complainant is highly improbable and not palatable with a pinch of salt. It is beyond imagination that a man of common prudence would sale his entire land to the seller without receiving the entire sale consideration and even for the second time also he would commit the same mistake as has been committed by him at the first point of time. It is most humble submission of the petitioner that the entire sale consideration has been paid to the complainant at the time of registration itself and which is evident from the afÏdavits of the witnesses 4 to the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner by the complainant. A glance of these statements on oath would demonstrate that the entire sale consideration has been paid to the complainant at the time of registration itself and nothing was to be paid to the complainant. Further, the Police authorities had after due investigation given a report that no case of criminal nature is made out against the petitioner as the entire transaction is purely civil in nature. It is further submitted that after execution of the sale deed, the petitioner came into possession of the land in question and his name has also been mutated in the land records. In these circumstances the present is the case where criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the trial Court has committed a serious error in registering the complaint despite categoric report of the police that any cognizable offence is not made out against the petitioner. In other words, the petitioner has not committed the offence punishable under Sections 418, 420 and 423 of IPC, as alleged by the complainant. After receipt of the police report, the trial Court ought to have appreciated the fact that continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be abuse of process of Court and abuse of process of law. The allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufÏcient ground for proceeding against the petitioner. The discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible. The petitioner craves leave of this Court to raise further grounds as are available to him during the course of hearing. 5 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the aforesaid submissions and submitted that after fully applying mind the Police has investigated the matter, and during the course of the investigation it has been revealed that the petitioner has used to cheat the respondent No.2 twice by not paying the amount in question to the petitioner after registration of the sale-deed, on the basis of which, the criminal case No. 1009/2013 has been filed by the respondent No.2 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurud, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 418, 420 and 423 of IPC, and there is no any illegality, infirmity in the same. Thus, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/complainant also endorse the submission advanced by the learned State counsel and submits that he had sold the land to the petitioner for total sale consideration amount of Rs. 4,72,500/-, for which after the registration of land the petitioner only given Rs. 1,20,000/- to the complainant and the remaining amount is yet to be paid by the petitioner, however, in the month of November 2008 again the petitioner saying that he will pay the entire amount of consideration at once got another registered sale deed in his favour in respect of ownership of land, but this time also he did not pay any money to the respondent No. 2 whereas the total sum of Rs. 21,53,000/- is due and payable by the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner deliberately and malafidly has not given the sale consideration amount of the land, therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurud, District - Dhamtari has rightly considered the statement of the complainant witnesses and inquiry report were submitted by Police authorities taking cognizance against the petitioner, thus, the present Cr.M.P filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and is 6 liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions made herein and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 8. From perusal of the records and submissions raised by the counsel for the parties, it transpires that the complaint case was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2 and reading of the complaint and statement of the witnesses would show that the dispute is civil in nature and the issue revolves around the payment of sale consideration amount, further the entire sale consideration amount has been paid to the complainant by the petitioner at the time of registration of land itself which is evident from the afÏdavits of the witnesses to the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner by the complainant, and the Police authorities had after due course of investigation submitted a report that no case of criminal nature is made out against the petitioner as the entire transaction is purely civil in nature, thus, the present case appears to be a fit case for interference by this Court for exercising the inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC. The criminal case No. 1009/2013 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurud, District – Dhamtari (C.G.), and all consequential proceedings arising thereof is hereby quashed. 9. Resultantly, this petition is allowed. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Sd/- Preeti