2024:CGHC:32527 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 455 of 2019

1. M. Balaji S/o Late M. Sarthi Aged About 63 Years R/o Ward No.7, Mahimanagar, P.S. Sirgitti, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus

1. K. Vasudev Rao S/o K. Suryanarayan Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Near Sai Mandir, P. S. Sirgitti, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

2. State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Chitendra Singh, Advocate.

For State : Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, PL.

SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

Order On Board

27/8/2024 1. Heard. 2. Admit.

3. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally.

4. Complainant/petitioner has filed this petition under Section

482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘the Code of 1973’) against the order dated 10.1.2019 passed by learned 7^th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No.253/18 thereby affirming the order dated 7.8.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Bilaspur rejecting complaint filed by complainant/petitioner under Section 200 of CrPC.

5. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that petitioner and respondent No.1 being residents of same locality were known to each other. Respondent No.1 contacted petitioner, sought financial help of Rs.1,50,000/- to fulfill his domestic need and promised that he will return money within two years. He also executed an agreement on 10.9.2014 and pursuant thereto petitioner extended help of Rs.1,50,000/- to respondent No.1 in cash. When respondent No.1 has refused to return the amount within agreed period, petitioner sent legal notice through his advocate asking him to return the amount, but he neither responded to legal notice nor returned the amount. Petitioner approached the police authorities but the police neither registered FIR nor taken against respondent No.1, therefore, he has filed an application under Section 200 of the Code of 1973 and the said application came to be rejected by the impugned order on the ground that from the police report it is evident that allegations pertain to money transaction between the parties, in fact the dispute is of a civil nature pertaining to money transaction for which civil remedy is available to complainant and from the contents of complaint, prima facie no ground is made out to register complaint under Section 420 of IPC. Petitioner filed a revision before the 7^th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur and the same was also dismissed by the order impugned holding that the petitioner has tried to give colour of criminality to a dispute which is purely of civil nature.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the orders passed by the trial Court as also revisional Court are arbitrary and illegal. He submits if application contains allegations of commission of a cognizable offence, then the Magistrate is under obligation to direct investigation after registration of FIR in each and every case. However, learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order failed to take into consideration that petitioner made specific allegations in his application that respondent No.1 dishonestly induced petitioner and by giving false assurance that he would repay the money has obtained money and thereafter he denied to return the same despite service of legal notice, which clearly bring forth the serious offence of cheating. Thus, the cognizable offence of cheating and fraud is prima facie made out against respondent No.1 on the basis of averments made in complaint filed by petitioner and material placed on record in support thereof and as such, learned Magistrate ought to have directed the police to register FIR and to conduct investigation into the allegations made by petitioner in his complaint. The revisional court also rejected the revision cursorily without appreciating the contents of complaint, documents and statements on record. Thus, both the Courts have erred in passing the impug