Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:1411 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 77 of 2025 1 - John Kripal Toppo S/o Bhekke Topoo Aged About 45 Years R/o Safed Khadan Post Office Devri Khurd P.S. Torva Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (Complainant) ... Petitioner(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Martha Senapati W/o Drona Senapati Aged About 35 Years R/o Teachers Colony In Front Of Mansarover Residency Police Station Saraswati Nagar Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) (Non Applicants) 2 - Drona Senapati Aged About 40 Years R/o Teachers Colony In Front Of Mansarover Residency Police Station Saraswati Nagar Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manohar Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 09/01/2025 1. The present petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 2 against the order dated 06.07.2024 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 163/2023 which is arising out of the order dated 03.10.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in unregistered Criminal Complaint whereby the learned judicial Magistrate has rejected the complaint case and the learned Revision Court has affirmed the order dated 06.07.2024. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is a regular employee of Group D of the Railway Department and posted in Bilaspur. The petitioner know and recognizes the respondents. It was told to the petitioner by the respondent no. 2 that he drives his car bearing no. CG 04 M 1333 through Ola Company and his wife is a teacher in private school in Raipur and he has a son. The respondent no. 2 along with his son used to visit the complainant’s residence in Bilaspur. Under the well-planned conspiracy, respondent no. 1and 2 took advantage of loneliness of the petitioner and took him into confidence and lured him to get the car in Ola company and earn money and induced him to buy the caron which the petitioner said he has no knowledge of cars and does not even know how to drive a car on which the accused induced the complainant to buy a car by giving various kinds of inducements, then the complainant agreed to the words of the accused and went to Maruti showroom to buy Maruti Ertiga. The petitioner provided the respondent no. 2 with the documents through Whatsapp and made payments through cash or cheque or phone pay on several 3 dates. After some days the petitioner believed that he has been tricked by the respondents and he demanded his money back which was not returned by the respondents instead the respondents started threatening him in implicating in the rape case and threatened to kill him. In this regard, a written complaint was made by the petitioner in Torwa Police Station and Superintendent of Bilaspur but no action has been taken. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Revision Court as well the Trial Court is contrary to the provisions of law and is liable to be set aside. He further contended that the actions of the respondents is punishable under Section 318 of BNSS, 2023. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Perusal of record shows that the petitioner had filed a complaint case under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., 1973 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur which was rejected by the JMFC, Bilaspur vide its order dated 03.10.2023 stating that the present complaint case is not maintainable. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 03.10.2023 filed a revision petition before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.). The learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur vide its order dated 06.07.2024 has rejected the revision petition and affirmed the order passed by the JMFC, Bilaspur, C.G. 6. Section 200 of Cr.P.C. reads as under: 4 “A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate; Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses, (1) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or (2) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under section 192; Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under section 192 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re-examine them.” 7. In the case-in-hand, from the records it is evident that the petitioner and respondent are from the same society and knows each other very well from the childhood. The learned Sessions Court has held that the records does not reflect that the respondents had dishonestly demanded money from the petitioner to purchase a Car and rent it in Ola company. Rather, records says that when the petitioner demanded money from the respondents and the respondents were unable to pay the money, then a complaint was made by the petitioner in various forums. Also, the petitioner has transferred money to respondents through bank transactions. The petitioner is an educated person and there is prior acquaintance with the respondents due to which the petitioner has given money to the respondents through the bank. 5 8. Perusal of the complaint made by the petitioner at Police Station- Torwa shows that the petitioner has transferred amounts of Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 2 lakhs, 15 thousand, 20 thousand, 10 thousand, 5 thousand and Rs. 1000/- from 20.10.2020 to 29.07.2021 which shows that the amount has been paid by the petitioner to the respondents as per the requirement due to which it is not clear that the respondents have demanded money for purchasing car. 9. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Sessions Court is neither illegal nor perverse and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. Hence, the present petition is not maintainable. 10. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P. is not maintainable in the eyes of law and is hereby dismissed. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima