HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL Misc. PETITION No. 13 OF 2009 G.C. Jain (Ginesh Chandra Jain), S/o' ACCUSED PETITIONERS / 1 . Late Shri Roshan Lal Jain, aged about 62 yeam, Chairman—Cum —Ma11aging Director, The Vardhman DevelOpers, 7th KM. on Haridwar—Delhi Road, Jwalapur, Haxidwar—249-407 (Uttrakhand). 2. U.C. Jain (Umesh Chandra Jain), S/o Late Shri Roshan Lal Jain, aged about 58 years, Dimctor, The Vanihman Developers, 7th KM, on Haridwar—Delhi Road, Jwalapur, Halidwar -249 407 (Uttrakhand). Sahnwaj, S/o Sayed Jaigam Ali, aged about 26 years, the then Sales O$ce13 The Vaxdhman Developers, 7th K.M. on 3. Haridwar—Delhi Road, Jwalapur, Halidwar -249 407 (Uttrakhand). Versus RESPONDENT] 1 . COMPLINANT Anil Verma, S/o Shri Motilal Vanna, aged about 28 yeats, R/o MIG—46, Padmanabhpur, Durg, District Dung (CG). State of Chhattisgarh, thmugh the Distn‘ct Magistrate, Durg, District Durg (C.G.). PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. RESPONDENT 2. (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:-. Shri B.D. Guru, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri N.S. Dhurandhar, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 . Shri Qamrul Aziz, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 2. i Q ORAL- oRDER (Passed .on os/ 1 1 [2009) . This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’} against the order dated 24/ 10/2008 passed b .the 9*11 y Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Durg in revision case No. 07/08 affirming the order dated 16/ 10/2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg in complaint case No. 2421/2007 whereby learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg has taken cognizance for the offence punishable tinder Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners on the basis of the complaint filed on behalf of the complainant] respondent No. 1. . Order is challenged on the ground that without any prlma facie evidence/material court below has taken cogxizance against the petitioners and thereby committed an illegality. . Learned counsel for the parties are heard. t Order impugned, copy of the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, copy of the complaint and coy of other documents filed on behalf of the q, petitioners perused. “£- . According to the case of the complainant some offence on the basis of negation and contract relating to the purchase and construction of the house have been committed and there was an agreement between the parties for construction of the house at Haridwar (State of Uttrakhand). It appears from the copy of the w documents that case is of civil nature may also be the offepce punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. in case where the act alleged is civil dispute and also the offence complainant is required to show the satisfy case that the present act of civil nature is also punishable under the some act and also require to produce the pn'ma facie material at the time of taking cognizance. lt appears from the copy of the documents that complainant has not produced the material prima facie sufficient for taking cognizance and to exclude the possibility that dispute is only civil nature. . On due consideration, the order taking cognizance and order impugned is not sustainable. Consequently, petition is allowed. Order impugned and order taking oogiizance is hereby set aside. Case is remitted back to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg for providing an opportunity of producing additional material to the complainant and passed the order afresh. Complainant is directed to present before the trial Court on 10/ 12/2009. r//f/ y Sd/- T.P. SHARMA Judge l /