@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR.M.P. No. 83/2009 PETITIDN UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:—. Shri Ratan Pusty, Advocate for the petitioner/ applicant. Shri Vivek Shanna, PL. for the State/respondent NO. 9. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 27/ 10/2009) 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Cn'minal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) for quashment of the order dated 28/ 11/2008 passed by S‘d Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in criminal revision No. 45/2008 afdrming the order APPLICANT Durgesh Dhurandhar, Son of Kcshav Compleainant Kumar Dhurandhar, aged about 25 years, r/o Sundamagar, Raipur, Tehs§1 and Distt. Raipur (C.G.). Vemus RESPONDENTS 1 . Jagcshwar Pmsad Sahu, Son of (Accused) Maksudan Sahu, aged about 59 years, r/o Village Sejbahar, RS. Tikxapara, Raipur, Tehsil and Distt. Raipur (C.G.). 2. Roopram, Son of Jagcshwar Sahu, aged about 55 years, 3. Rameshwar, Son of Maksudan Sahu, aged 72 yeam, 4. Lalmani, Son of Sonau Sahu, aged about 47 years, 5. Neelmani, Son of Sonau Sahu aged about 42 years, 6. Krishna Bai, Daughter of Sonau Sahu, aged about 43 yeaxs, W/o Madansahu, 7. Shivbau', D/o Sonau Sahu, aged about 44 years. 8. Chamarin Bai, Wd/o Sonau Sahu, aged about 65 years, Respondents no. 2 to 9 are residents of Near Shiv Mandir, Sahupara, Dagniya, RS. DD. nagar, Raipur, Tehsil and Distt. Raipur (C.G.]. 9. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Distt. Magistrate, Raipur. dated 15/ 10/ 07 passed by the leaxned Judicial Magistmte First Class, Raipur in unregistemd complaint case whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur has dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code.. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that although he has made 8 persons as a accused but substantially oh‘ence has been committed by mspondent No. 1 Jageshwar Prasad Sahu, petitioner has adduced snfticient evidence before the Court below‘but Court below has not taken cognizance against the respondent No. 1. 3. Order impugned, copy of complaint, copy of agteement and copy of the order of the trial Court perused. 4. It reveals from the order of the trial Court and revisional Court that dispute between parties is of civil nature, revisional Court also mentioned in Para -15 of the order impugned that petitioner has not adduced any evidence to show whether cheque has been encashed or not by the respondent. 5. According to the case of the petitioner, petitioner has entered into an agreement with the respondent No. 1, he paid Rs. 3 Lakhs to respondent NO. 1 but in stead of executing the sale deed respondent NO. 1 has sold the property to other person and has not returned the amount of cheque [advance to’ the petitioner, it appears that petitioner has not examined the witnesses to show that whether cheque has been received or encashed by the respondent No. 1 or not and whether even after receiving the notice respondent has returned the amount or not, it requires further inquiry into the matter. At the time of taking cognizance hearing of the accused are not necessaly therefore, issuance of the notice to respondents is hereby dispensed with. On due consideration the order impugned is not sustainable and further inquiry in to the complaint is necessaly. Consequently, petition is allowed. Order impugned is hereby set aside. Case is remitted back to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur for making further inquiry in accordance with Section 398 of the Code. Sdl- T.P. SHARMA Judge w