The court emphasized the difference in essential ingredients of the offenses under section 420 of IPC and section 138 of NI Act, highlighting that the dispute between the parties is not purely of civil nature.

ORDER

1. This revision under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved by order dated 31.12.2018 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni in Criminal Revision No.95/2016 whereby the order of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Waraseoni dated 01.12.2016 has been set aside.

2. As per applicants the order passed by the trail Court has been perversely set aside by the lower revisional court because it failed to understand that when compromise has already been made under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "NI Act"), the direction for registration of a criminal case in respect of same transaction, is abuse of process of Court.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent filed a criminal case under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that applicants have entered into sale agreement in respect of certain agricultural lands, which could not be materialized, due to mortgage and sale of such lands to other persons. The respondent filed a complaint under section 138 of N.I. Act, which was subsequently compromised, as stated earlier. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Waraseoni vide order dated 01.12.2016 refused to issue direction under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR against the applicants and directed the Police to submit an information with regard to enquiry conducted in respect of earlier complaints. Thereafter, the respondent filed a revision before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni alleging that the learned trial Court has wrongly rejected the application under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., even though there was sufficient ground to call for the report. The respondent has cheated the applicants. The property which was under agreement for sale has already been sold to some other persons and it was mortgaged with the Bank. It cannot be said that the dispute was purely of civil nature. Hence, order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside.

4. The revision filed by the respondent has been allowed with a direction to the trial Court to proceed under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and register case against the respondent because it is a case of cheating. The offences under section 138 of NI Act and the one under section 420 of IPC are entirely different. Hence, the order passed by the trial Court has been set aside. Against the aforesaid order this revision has been filed to set aside the order passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni passed in CRR No.95/2016.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that impugned order is bad in law as the revisional court without appreciating the grounds mentioned under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in proper perspective. It further failed to consider that compromise has already been arrived in proceeding u/s 138 of NI Act, then in such a situation direction for registration of criminal case is unsustainable. The parties were having transaction which was purely of civil nature and, therefore, same cannot be converted into criminal proceedings. The impugned order reflects non-application of mind. Learned counsel in support of his contentions has placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Manoj Jain Vs. State of M.P and another, 2014 (3) MPHT 302, Sachin Raosaheb Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2015 Cr.L.J. 733, Vijayander Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, Laws (SC) 2014, K. Thankamani and etc. Vs. The Inspector General of Police Kozhikode and others, 2002 Cr.L.J. 1992, Kamlesh Pathak and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2005 (3) MPHT 426, Ramdev Food Products Pvt.Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat, 2015 Cri.L.J. 2382 and Mangli Prasad and others Vs. Additional Sessions Judge and another, 1996 Cri.L.J. 3596.

6. In the present case, there is no dispute that the applicants executed sale agreements in respect of lands bearing Khasra No.692/7, 693/7 & 694/7 area being 0.10 hectares and Khasra No.695/3 & 696/9 area 0.129 h