The judgment emphasizes that disputes of a civil nature should not be misrepresented as criminal offences and that the abuse of the criminal process should be prevented.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Harish Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 16.08.2022 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi in Criminal Misc. Case No. 334 of 2022 refusing to order registration of case against the opposite parties on an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the applicant-Ravi Shankar.

3. This matter is being finally decided without issuing notice to the respondent no. 2.

4. The relevant facts in brief are that the applicant/present revisionist had moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against Ashish Kushwaha and two unknown persons with the allegations that Ashish Kushwaha, married the applicant's wife's sister and became his 'saadu bhai' thus has been able to set up friendly relations with him. He lured the revisionist to enter into partnership with him. The accused made him believe that he has been making huge profits by getting tenders in his favour worth Rs. 2,17,00,000/-. He assured him to earn a good amount of money if he participated in his business venture; the applicant/revisionist could not detect his dishonest and fraudulent intention initially and therefore, he invested a total amount of Rs. 15,00,000/-on different dates, however, later on, he came to know that all the tenders and quotations were false and fabricated; he asked the applicant/revisionist to meet him at a hotel in Jhansi in this connection; he also called him at a place in Lucknow where he was threatened with his life. On 01.02.2022, Ashish Kushwaha came to his place in his motor car, indulged in name calling and forcibly made him sign some stamp papers and also assaulted the applicant/revisionist.

5. The main contention of the revisionist is that the learned court below wrongly held that the place of occurrence fell within District-Etawah and not within District-Jhansi; that the court below ignored the facts mentioned in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., showing that a big amount of money was grabbed from the revisionist with a dishonest intention; he was, on false pretext, cajoled him to enter into partnership with the respondent no. 2 with an eye on his money; the impugned order has been passed on the basis of conjectures, surmises and being arbitrary should be set aside with the direction to lodge the FIR against the respondent no. 2 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 452, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act.

6. In nutshell, the allegations are that the applicant/revisionist was lured to enter into a business transaction with a dishonest intention and that he has been defrauded of Rs. 15,00,000/-and was assaulted when the applicant/revisionist protested against him.

7. The matter was heard and was dismissed by an order dated 16.08.2022. Against the order of dismissal, the applicant/revisionist has come in revision before this Court.

8. Before I proceed further, it shall be useful to refer to some precedents with regard to nature of dispute, as is before this Court. In Criminal Appeal No. 932 of 2021 (Randheer Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others) decided on 02.09.2021, the case before the Supreme Court was that one Arjun Dev and his wife Bela Rani allegedly executed a registered power of attorney of their bhumidhari plot in favour of one Rajan Kumar, who, on the basis of this power of attorney, executed sale deeds in favour of the appellant and his family members and their name was mutated in the revenue records. However, during mutation proceedings, one Ms. Beena Shrivastava unsuccessfully filed an objection before the Nayab Tehsildar. Thereafter, she filed a suit for cancellation of power of attorney but that was dismissed; the order of dismissal was challenged in an appeal before the High Court, which was partly allowed; she went for further remedies by filing a Special Leave Petition (Civil) but she remained unsuccessful vide orders passed in 2016.