1 2026:CGHC:2756 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1085 of 2021 Smt. P. Radhika Rani W/o Shri P. S. Murlidhar, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Srinagar, Khamtarai Raipur, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Flat No. 103, Kalptaru, Apartment, Priyadarshani Nagar, Krishna Talkies Road, Risali, Bhilai, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. H.D.F.C. Limited Through Om Prakash Jaju S/o Shri Ghanshyam Janu Aged About 40 Years Office Address Alaska Tower, Infront of Ayogya Hospital, Lodhi Para Road, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh .............(Complainant) 2. Ratanlal Goyal, Aged About 80 Years, R/o Silver Springs Gayatri Nagar, Avanti Vihar Main Road Raipur, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Sai Krishna Builders And Promoters Through Smt. B. Shanti @ Smt. B. Hishita Prasad, W/o Late B. S. Prasad, Aged About 45 Years R/o Flat No. 301, Beside Anu Beauty Parlor, 9-24-10 Vinaigar Towers CBM Compound, Vishakhapatnama, Andra Pradesh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Priya Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 1 6.01.2026 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against her by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.), whereby the learned Court has taken cognizance under complaint filed by Respondent No.1 under PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.01.21 13:13:08 +0530 2 Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and registered a Complaint Case No.4461/2018 against the petitioner. 2. The facts of the case in short, is that the petitioner agreed to purchase a house in a colony named Sai Vilas, a project of B.S. Prasad, who held a power of attorney over the land bearing Survey No. 668/1, 677/2, PH No. 105, Main Road, Bhatagaon, Raipur (C.G.) from the original owner, Ratan Lal Goyal, who is respondent No. 2 herein. For the purchase of the above- mentioned house, an agreement to sale was executed on 23.05.2012 between M/s Sai Krishna Builder and Promoters through Proprietor B.S. Prasad and the petitioner. As per the agreement, the petitioner agreed to purchase House No. M12, Block M, Plot No. 20, measuring 770 sq. ft. with a total built-up area of 1300 sq. ft. for a total consideration of Rs. 23 lakhs, of which Rs. 7 lakhs was paid by the petitioner to the builder. For the remaining consideration of Rs. 15 lakhs, respondent No. 2 and the builder arranged finance from H.D.F.C. Limited (respondent No. 1). Accordingly, a tripartite agreement was executed on 24.05.2012 between the petitioner, the builder, and H.D.F.C. Limited, under which respondent No. 1 agreed to disburse Rs. 15 lakhs to the builder. During the loan process, the petitioner submitted blank cheques for security, including cheque no. 007101, and other necessary documents. As the house construction was not yet complete, the builder agreed to pay the monthly equity installment to respondent No. 1 until the house was handed over. Following this arrangement, respondent No. 1 released Rs. 13 lakhs to respondent No. 3. The construction was completed, yet the builders failed to hand over possession of the house to the petitioner and did not execute the sale deed in her name. Upon inquiry, the petitioner discovered that based on a power of attorney dated 23.05.2009, the builder had sold the house to Rajendra Tiwari vide sale deed dated 25.04.2016, and that 3 respondent No. 3 was not the original owner of the land. Respondent No. 2 is the registered titleholder and had executed a power of attorney in favor of the late B.S. Prasad, husband of respondent No. 3. Thus, all three respondents willfully cheated the petitioner through a false agreement. Upon discovering the fraud, the petitioner requested the builders to discharge the bank liability, as she neither became the titleholder nor was the loan created in her account. On 08.10.2015, respondent No. 1 issued a certificate of closure of loan. During the pendency of the proceedings, B.S. Prasad died. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 pressured the petitioner to repay the loan. The petitioner made payments of Rs. 65,000 on 15.01.2019, Rs. 53,400 on 29.12.2020, Rs. 22,977 on 05.02.2021, and Rs. 2,00,000 on 06.02.2021. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 claimed that the matter was settled. Despite these payments, the builders failed to hand over the house, prompting the petitioner to file a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Raipur, which received no action. The petitioner was surprised when respondent No. 1 issued a notice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, alleging default in loan repayment against cheque no. 007101, which was dishonored, and subsequently filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. read with Section 138 N.I. Act. 3. Upon consideration of the complaint, affidavit and documents placed on record, and after hearing the learned counsel for the complainant, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, found that prima facie ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were made out and accordingly, took cognizance against the petitioner and directed issuance of summons. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of taking cognizance and the consequential proceedings, the petitioner has preferred the present petition invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC. 4 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order taking cognizance against the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and passed without proper application of mind. It is further contended that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court and, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed. It is further submitted that entire process and court proceedings were initiated by the respondents with malafide intentions, misusing her signed papers and documents under the influence of her father-in-law, thereby harassing the petitioner. Further, the disputed house was never delivered to the petitioner, and the power of attorney on the basis of which respondent No. 3 constructed the house had been cancelled by respondent No. 2, who also sent a legal notice to respondent No. 3 for its cancellation. In the present case, the petitioner alone has been cheated. A loan was allegedly issued in her favour, but no amount was credited to her account, nor did she receive possession of the house for which the loan was sanctioned. It is further contended that it is a clear case of cheating, as the power of attorney issued in favour of the late B.S. Prasad was cancelled on 22.01.2015, and yet he sold House No. N-12 to Rajendra Tiwari on 25.04.2016, despite having no legal right to do so. Furthermore, once a financial institution finances an immovable property, it becomes the sole owner until the loan is fully repaid. In the present case, respondent No. 1 sanctioned the finance for the disputed house on 18.05.2012, thereby becoming the sole owner of the property. Any sale without the consent of respondent No. 1 is therefore illegal. The fact that respondent No. 3 sold the house without such consent indicates that no valid loan was actually sanctioned. Respondent No. 1 has failed to produce any statement showing the amount released, the amount allegedly paid against the imaginary loan, or the outstanding balance in respect of the cheque 5 presented before the bank. The tripartite agreement between the parties does not contain any clause allowing respondent No. 1 to file a case under the N.I. Act for loan recovery. Moreover, as per Clause 17 of the tripartite agreement and the loan approval letter dated 18.05.2012, the builder never executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Before filing the complaint under the N.I. Act, respondent No. 1 never issued any recovery notice for the alleged loan. The petitioner has also filed a complaint before the Chhattisgarh RERA Estate Regulatory Authority seeking allotment of the house, but no relief has been granted. Respondent No. 1 appeared before RERA and admitted sanctioning the loan of Rs. 15 lakhs, while remaining silent on the registration of the sale deed and other formalities. Respondent No. 1 has also failed to explain why, despite issuing an NOC, the property was sold to a third party. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order, therefore, the instant petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. From perusal of the documents available on record and from the order passed by the Court of JMFC, it transpires that the learned trial Court has considered the complaint, affidavit filed under Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the documents annexed therewith, including the cheque, cheque return memo, statutory notice and postal receipt. After such consideration, the learned Magistrate recorded a prima facie satisfaction that sufficient grounds exist to take cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 6 9. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, legal infirmity, or patent illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The impugned order does not suffer from non- application of mind or perversity warranting interference by this Court. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. The impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is legal, proper and calls for no interference. 11. Accordingly, the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). 12. 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 Preeti