1 - Vikash Singhal S/o Shri Radheshyam Singhal Aged About 48 Years Vimal Traders v. 1 - Archana Devi Jain W/o Mahaveer Prasad Jain R/o Patni Villa, Plot No
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:3081 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 196 of 2025 1 - Vikash Singhal S/o Shri Radheshyam Singhal Aged About 48 Years Vimal Traders, Akashganga Complex, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Archana Devi Jain W/o Mahaveer Prasad Jain R/o Patni Villa, Plot No. 01, New Nehru Nagar, Opposite Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mahaveer Prasad Jain R/o Patni Villa, Plot No. 01, New Nehru Nagar, Opposite Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Superintendent Of Police Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Station House Officer Supela, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Binu Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 17/01/2025 1. The present petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 18.11.2024 passed by Sessions Judge Durg, District-Durg, (C.G.) bearing Criminal Revision No. 221 of 2 2024 whereby dismissed the revision petition arising out of order dated 17.05.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Criminal Case No. 911 of 2022 whereby the application of applicant was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the applicant filed an application under section 156 (3) of CRPC before the trial court against the respondent whereby stating that applicant and respondent Mahavir Prasad Jain are known to each other and both the respondents were purchasing articles from the shop of applicant for construction of their hotel. In this connection in the year 2016, respondents requested for borrowing Rs. 16,00,000/- from the applicant and they will return the amount within one year and in between they will give some portion of their profit of their business to the applicant. Believing upon the respondents and for enhancing his own business applicant accepted the request of respondent and entered into an agreement on 07.04.2016 with the respondents and also obtained promissory note executed by the respondents and transferred Rs. 16 lakhs through RTGS to the respondents. Initially respondent paid Rs. 3,35,253/- to the applicant from 13.04.2016 to 17.01.2017 out of profit of their business. Thereafter, respondents have neither paid the share of profit to the applicant nor returned the original amount of Rs. 16 lakhs and when the applicant demanded his money back, then the respondents, gave him signed cheque of their joint account of State Bank of India bearing cheque No. 648314 and amount of 3 Rs. 16 lakhs issued on 09.03.2018 in the name of applicant and assured that on presentation of cheque payment will be made to the applicant. On 09.03.2018 above cheque No. 648314 was deposited by the applicant in his Canara Bank account which was returned on 12.03.2018 with note that account is closed. The applicant got the above information from the bank. Being aggrieved applicant sent registered legal notice to the respondents through his advocate on 28.03.2018 which was duly received by the respondents then also payment was not made to the applicant. Therefore, applicant filed complaint case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the trial court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the application filed by the applicant under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the trial court vide its order dated 17.05.2024 and being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner preferred a revision before Sessions Court, Durg, bearing criminal revision no. 221 of 2024 which was also dismissed vide order dated 18.11.2024. 4. Learned Counsel for the State supported the order passed by the trial court as well as revisional court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. On perusal of record, I have found that respondent has issued cheque in favour of the petitioner bearing no. 648314 which was 4 bounced due to closure of account. Petitioner has filed a complaint case under Section 138 of NI Act before the JMFC. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for registering the offence under Section 405, 406, 420 and 34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed his reliance upon Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Another (2012) 7 SCC 621. 7. Section 405 of IPC provides as under: 405. Criminal breach of trust.— “Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”. 8. Section 420 of IPC provides as under: 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. “Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 9. Learned JMFC vide its order dated rejected the application stating that the dispute arising between the complainant and the accused 5 appears to be due to transaction and a complaint has been filed by the complainant to register the crime of cheating on the basis of cheque, agreement and promissory note against the accused. Since the matter relates to Section 138 of NIA are dealt with in the form of a complaint in accordance with the special law. Thus, the complaint based on the said cheque, agreement and promissory note is already pending in another court under Section 138 of NIA. Therefore, it does not seem appropriate to take cognizance against the accused in connection with the same dispute. Thereafter, the Sessions Judge, Durg has also rejected the revision stating that the learned JMFC has rightly rejected the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 10. This Court is of the considered opinion that from the very beginning of the business by and between the parties, it is simply a business transaction and respondent has issued a cheque in favour of the petitioner which was bounced. Therefore, offence under Section 405, 406 and 420 of IPC is not made out against the respondents. 11. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima