1 2026:CGHC:4804 NAFR HIGH Court OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 970 of 2022 Akash Agarwal S/o Late Shri Anil Agarwal Aged About 45 Years R/o 12/b, A Wing, Anita Apartments, Malabar Hills, Mumbai, Currently Residing At- 601-602, Sangit Sarita Apartments, Breach Candy, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Police Station Tardeo Police Station, Tahsil, Civil And Revenue District Mumbai (Maharashtra) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - Sunil Agrawal S/o Late Shri Laxminarayan Agarwal Aged About 67 Years R/o 1/46, Motilal Nehru Nagar (East), Bhilai, P.S. Supela, Tehsil, Civil And Revenue District Durg Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Jaydeep Singh Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Jaydeep Singh Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent No.1/State, as well as Mr. Arpan Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being aggrieved with the order dated 09.01.2020 passed in Regular Criminal Case No. 360/2020, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Durg has registered the complaint dated 20.02.2015 under Section 419, 420, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC against the petitioner and one more accused person and also the order dated 12.10.2021 wherein the learned JMFC, Durg has also registered the offence under Section 467 of IPC against the petitioner along with one more co- accused on the interpretation of aggrieved order dated 28.08.2021 passed by learned learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant Sunil Agarwal who is the paternal uncle of the present petitioner, was one of the directors among other family members in the company namely "Laxmi Distributors Private Limited" having its registered office at 36/40, Mahalaxmi Brigade Arcade, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400034 which was incorporated on 15/01/1980. In the year 1990, the complainant by virtue of being a director of the said company, purchased plot no. 30 & 31 situated at Shivnath Complex, Supela, Bhilai on lease/hire-purchase for and behalf of the company "Laxmi Distributors Private Limited" from Special Area Development Authority (SADA). On 21/10/1994, the concerned company's name "Laxmi Distributors Private Limited" was changed to "Laxmi Ventures (India) Limited" herein referred 3 in short as "LVIL". The said change in name of the company was then notified and brought to the notice of the Estate Officer, Special Area Development Authority, Supela by a letter dated 06/07/1995 for bringing the said name change of company in their records by the company officials for enabling the company to register the said plots in the new name, which were originally allotted in the name of "Laxmi Distributors Ltd" through its director Sunil Agarwal. Along with the said letter dated 06/07/1995, a copy of certificate of change of name of the company, duly issued by the Registrar of Companies, Bombay was also enclosed and likewise, on 12/09/1995, the permission to change the name of the allottee was granted by SADA. Likewise, on February 1997, a lease agreement was signed between the company Messrs. Laxmi Ventures (India) Limited through Director Sunil Agarwal and Special Area Development Authority (SADA), Bhilai-Durg concerning plot no. 30 and the said plot was leased out to the company "LVIL" for a period of 30 years i.e. till 31/03/2025. 4. The complainant Sunil Agarwal then resigned as Director of the company "LVIL" on 14/01/2000 and a new director was appointed namely Akash Agarwal, who is the petitioner in the present case. Later on 14/11/2002, another director namely Sandeep Agarwal (real brother of petitioner, Akash Agarwal) was made a director of the company and the mother of the present petitioner namely Chitra Agarwal was appointed as Director on 14/03/2015. The complainant then challenged the said resignation from the post of 4 Director, LVIL dated 14/01/2000 before the Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi in C.P. No. 7 of 2002 alleging oppression and mismanagement and also contended that he has not resigned but was illegally removed from the company LVIL. The Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi vide its order dated 06/01/2012 categorically held that, there is no illegality in cessation of Complainant's directorship and he was not removed and he himself resigned and his resignation was accepted by the company and the order dated 06/01/2012 categorically held that the complainant has failed to make out a case that the alleged removal was per se oppressive and that he was removed illegally. 5. Against the said order of the Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi dated 06/01/2012, the complainant then preferred a company appeal before the High Court of Bombay, which was registered as Company Appeal (L) No. 11 of 2012 wherein 2 relevant orders were passed by the High Court of Bombay dated 26/04/2012 and 04/01/2013 which were specific to the "Bhilai Unit" and no interim stay was made by the High Court on the order dated 06/01/2012 passed by the Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi. 6. he complainant on 20/02/2015 then preferred a complaint before the learned CJM, Durg against the present petitioner, one Sunil Gujrati, Anil Agarwal, Smt. Chitra Agarwal, Sandeep Agarwal, R P 5 Sahu and one more person and alleged that Laxmi Ventures (India) Limited (in short-LVIL) is a company and at the given time was being run by Anil Agarwal (father of the present petitioner), Smt. Chitra Agarwal (mother of the present petitioner), Akash Agarwal (Petitioner) & Sandeep Agarwal (brother of the present petitioner) and the said company LVIL owns a plot no. 30 and 31 at Shivnath Complex, Supela, Bhilai Distt- Durg which was purchased by the company through Director in the year 1997. The complainant further alleged that the said company (LVIL) is now being run by the petitioner and his family members (mother, father and brother) and for the purpose of securing a loan from the State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, AB Road, Indore for the LVIL's Indore division namely Laxmi Solvex (Pvt Ltd company) the co- accused Sunil Gujrati under the direction of the other accused(s) including the present petitioner made an application dated 04/02/2011 to get NOC from Municipal Corporation, Bhilai concerning the land no. 30 & 31 situated at Bhilai for mortgaging it to the bank and in support of the said application, the accused no. 1 Sunil Gujrati gave the forged affidavit of the complainant by portraying himself as Sunil Agarwal (complainant) and presented it before the Municipal Corporation on 04/02/2011 and obtained an NOC on 09/02/2011 from the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai. The complainant further alleged in his complaint that the said act was committed by the co-accused Sunil Gujrati under the express direction and order of the co-accused persons including the 6 present petitioner. Later, when the complainant got to know about this, he then obtained the alleged forged application and affidavit along with other documents through RTI and after perusing the signatures, he got to know that the co-accused Sunil Gujrati had inscribed the signatures of the complainant on the said affidavit and application and the present petitioner had given an authority letter in favour of the co-accused person Sunil Gujrati thereby granting him the authority to apply for the application for NOC and seek NOC from the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai leading to the grant of NOC from the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai. Subsequently, the complainant gave a written complaint to the P.S.- Supela on 12/01/2015 for necessary action and when no action was taken by the said police, the complainant then presented a complaint before the CJM, Durg. 7. In pursuance of the complaint of the complainant, the learned JMFC, Durg then recorded the statement of the complainant on 08/05/2015 and the statement of Handwriting expert Dr. Kumari Sunandha Dhenge on 26/05/2015. The complainant Sunil Agarwal also made statement dated 02/10/2017 in which he alleged similar grievances. The Learned JMFC, Durg also sought an investigation report from the concerned police, Supela, Bhilai vide a letter dated 03/07/2017 and the concerned police vide its report dated 07/11/2017 and 12/2017 informed the learned JMFC, Durg that though the complainant has accused the accused persons including the petitioner to cheat the complainant by obtaining a 7 NOC based on forged affidavit, the Municipal Corporation admits to have issued the NOC but there is no evidence with regard to, any forgery committed with respect to any document or whether the loan was indeed taken from the said bank and the complainant only states about the planning to take a loan from the bank and for this reason the complaint dated 12/01/2015 was not registered by the concerned police. The learned JMFC, Durg vide order dated 27/12/2017 dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the complainant while claiming to be the owner of the said land no. 30 de 31 has not been able to produce any documents proving title among other grounds. The said dismissal order was challenged by the complainant before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in criminal revision no. 54/2018 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durg vide its order dated 08/01/2019 directed the leaned JMFC, Durg to grant opportunity to the complainant to adduce evidence and documents. 8. In pursuance of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durg dated 08/01/2019, the learned JMFC, Durg then recorded the statement of one Akhilesh Kumar Verma on 13/09/2019 and the statement of Dr. Kumari Sunanda Dhenge on 27/09/2019. Subsequently, on 09/01/2020, the learned JMFC, Durg vide its order, registered the complaint of the complainant under Section 419, 420, 468, 471, 34 of IPC against the present petitioner and one more co-accused person Sunil Gujrati and dismissed the complaint against Anil Agarwal (father of the 8 petitioner), Smt. Chitra Agarwal (mother of the petitioner) & Sandeep Agarwal (brother of the petitioner) and one Mr. RP Sahu. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the complaint against the co- accused persons, the complainant then preferred a criminal revision before the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in criminal revision no. 128/2020 and the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg vide its order dated 28/08/2021 ordered the learned JMIFC, Durg to proceed and pass an order without being influenced by the order of the revisional Court against the other co-accused persons after hearing the parties and also held that, in respect of the prayer of the complainant to register offence under Section 467 of IPC against the present petitioner and other co- accused persons, the power of revisional Court is limited and under the powers of revision, the trial Court cannot be ordered to register an offence under any particular Section and to take action in respect to and only preliminary investigation can be ordered under the power of revision. 9. 9. On 12/10/2021, the learned JMFC, Durg by erroneously interpreting the order of the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg dated 28/08/2021 also registered the offence of Section 467 of IPC against the present petitioner and another co- accused person wherein the reason provided by the Learned JMFC, Durg was that, the learned revisional Court, Durg vide order dated 28/08/2021 has ordered to pass a fresh order regarding the offence of Section 467 of IPC on the basis of 9 evidence available on record but the order dated 28/08/2021 is specific and clear that no order regarding the fresh adjudication of offence under Section 467 of IPC was ever made by the revisional Court. Hence, this petition. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned courts below failed to take into consideration the fact that the complainant has not provided any reason whatsoever to explain the inordinate delay of around 4 years in approaching the authorities for initiating the case against the present petitioner and it is pertinent to note that the complainant who is the paternal uncle of the present petitioner is in the habit of filing cases against the petitioner and his family members particularly his deceased father against whom the complainant was after for ill-demands of having a share in their property without any valid basis. The very complaint itself is self-explanatory to the fact that the time of occurrence of the alleged offence is mentioned to be of year 2011 but the date of presenting the complaint is 20/02/2015. It is also submitted that the complainant himself till now has not produced any such document which would show his personal ownership over the said land nor he has also shown any document which authorizes him to initiate a complaint on behalf of the company. Hence, the impugned orders must be quashed. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/State as well as the learned counsel for the private respondent No.2 also 10 submits that the grounds raised in the petition by the petitioner would be a defence of the petitioner which can be raised during trial before the learned JMFC, Durg. It is also submitted that the petitioner along with Sunil Gujrati has already committed the offence and merely because the property could not be mortgaged would not lead to a presumption that no offence is made out. The offence has already been committed but since the complainant was vigilant; therefore the accused persons could not succeed in mortgaging the said property and if the NOC obtained by playing fraud has been surrendered will not wipe out the criminal action on the part of the accused and the Mens Rea to commit an offence. Hence, the instant petition being deviod of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions made herein and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 13. From the perusal of the records and submissions raised by the counsel for the petitioner, it transpires that it is manifest from the complaint itself that the alleged incident is stated to have occurred in the year 2011, whereas the complaint was admittedly lodged on 20.02.2015, reflecting an inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly four years in setting the criminal law into motion, the complainant has utterly failed to furnish any plausible or satisfactory explanation for such abnormal delay, thus, the 11 present case appears to be a fit case for interference by this Court for exercising the inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC. Hence, the order dated 09.01.2020 passed in Regular Criminal Case No. 360/2020, whereby the learned JMFC, Durg has registered the complaint under Section 419, 420, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC against the petitioner and also the order dated 12.10.2021 wherein the learned JMFC, Durg has also registered the offence under Section 467 of IPC against the petitioner, and all consequential proceedings arising thereof is hereby quashed. 14. Resultantly, this petition is allowed. 15. Office 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 Rajshekhar