1 2026:CGHC:25149 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 321 of 2023 SRG Altis Zeus Health Care Private Ltd. Through Its Director Rakesh Thakkar, Miracle Complex, Bus Stand, P.S. Kotwali Durg District Durgh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Akash Bakshi S/o Gopal Prasad Bakshi, R/o Flat No. 203, Tower -B, Surya Residencey, Junwani Road, Motilal Nehru Nagar Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shriranjan Rao, S/o Late M.S.K. Rao, R/o A-3/211, Suryavhihar Colony, Motilal Nehru Nagar Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Rathod, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. K. Rohan, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.06.2026 1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13-12- 2022 passed by the learned First Additional Session Judge, Durg in Criminal Revision no. 246/22. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is a company engaged in providing healthcare services and was operating a hospital under the Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.06.19 19:16:35 +0530 2 name "Altis Hospital" at Bhilai. It is alleged that the respondents, who were Directors of the petitioner-company, in conspiracy with the co- accused landlord and his Power of Attorney holder, executed a rent agreement dated 19.06.2020 in respect of a property over which the co-accused had allegedly lost all rights pursuant to orders passed by the Additional Tahsildar prior to execution of the agreement. On the basis of the said rent agreement, the petitioner-company obtained permissions for running the hospital. Subsequently, upon receipt of a show-cause notice from the Pollution Control Board regarding the validity of the rent agreement, the petitioner came to know about the alleged fraud, resulting in closure of the hospital and substantial financial loss. Alleging commission of offences including cheating and conspiracy, the petitioner filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, who directed registration of an FIR under Sections 420 and 34 IPC. The said order was, however, set aside by the learned Revisional Court by order dated 13.12.2022, which is under challenge in the present proceedings. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-company is engaged in providing healthcare services and had established and operated Altis Hospital at Bhilai on the basis of a rent agreement dated 19.06.2020 executed by the co-accused claiming themselves to be the owner and Power of Attorney holder of the property in question. He submits that prior to execution of the said agreement, the name of co- accused Aftab Ahmad Khan had already been deleted from the revenue records by orders dated 24.03.2020 and 24.04.2020 passed by the competent Revenue Authority and, therefore, the co-accused had no lawful right, title or interest over the property. Despite having 3 knowledge of the said fact, the respondents, who were Directors of the petitioner-company, acted in connivance with the co-accused and facilitated execution of the rent agreement, thereby inducing the petitioner-company to act upon the same. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the fraudulent nature of the transaction came to light only after a show-cause notice was issued by the Pollution Control Board pointing out that the rent agreement relied upon by the petitioner-company was not legally valid in view of the deletion of the landlord's name from the revenue records. As a consequence, the petitioner-company was compelled to discontinue the functioning of its hospital, resulting in substantial financial loss and damage to its reputation. It is contended that the conduct of the respondents in suppressing the show-cause notice, maintaining correspondence with the co-accused contrary to the interests of the petitioner-company, and disclosing confidential affairs of the company clearly demonstrates their active participation in the alleged conspiracy. 5. It is further submitted that the complaint and documents placed on record prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC and, therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had rightly directed registration of an FIR. However, the learned Revisional Court, while exercising limited revisional jurisdiction, erroneously entered into disputed questions of fact, misconstrued the effect of the interim order passed in the writ proceedings, and set aside the well-reasoned order of the Magistrate. It is also argued that the revision itself was not maintainable as it was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation 4 and without impleading all necessary parties. Therefore, the impugned revisional order being contrary to law and the material available on record deserves to be set aside and the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directing registration of the FIR deserves to be restored. 6. Per contra, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the dispute raised by the petitioner is essentially civil in nature arising out of a landlord–tenant arrangement. It is submitted that the respondents were merely Directors of the petitioner-company and had acted in the ordinary course of management of the hospital. There is no material on record to show that they had any dishonest intention or mens rea at the time of execution of the rent agreement so as to attract the ingredients of the offences alleged. It is further submitted that the learned Revisional Court, upon proper appreciation of the material available on record, rightly held that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out and accordingly set aside the order directing registration of the FIR. Therefore, no interference with the impugned order is called for and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Revisional Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction while setting aside the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The allegations raised by the petitioner primarily arise out of disputes concerning the validity of the rent agreement and the affairs of the company, which involve disputed questions of fact requiring 5 adjudication before the appropriate forum. At this stage, no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error is discernible in the impugned revisional order warranting interference in exercise of the inherent/supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. SD/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Jyoti