Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Lata Toppo vs Dr. Vishnu Manidhar Dubey on 1 November, 2022
Page 1 of 4
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
W.P.(227) No. 436 of 2020
1. Smt. Lata Toppo W/o Shri Dileram Khunte Aged About 32 Years
Occupation- Service (B.P.M.)(The Then, Block Program Manager),
R/o- Gangapur Khurd, P.S. Gandhi Nagar, Ambikapur, Tehsil-
Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
2. Dileram Khunte S/o Shri Arjun Lal Khunte Aged About 40 Years
Occupation- Government Service, A.P.O. (Assistant Project Officer),
R/o- Gangapur Khurd, P.S. Gandhi Nagar, Ambikapur, Tehsil-
Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. Dr. Vishnu Manidhar Dubey S/o Late Shri Adityadhar Dubey Aged
About 53 Years Occupation- Assistant Professor, Gahira Guru
Sanskrit College, Samarbar, Block- Bagicha, District- Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh, R/o Mohalla- Patel Para, P.S. Gandhi Nagar,
Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
2. Satish Singh S/o Shri Ram Niwas Singh Aged About 45 Years
Occupation- Contractor And Property Dealer, R/o Mohalla- Boripara,
Near Police Control Room, Ambikapur, P.S. And Tehsil- Ambikapur,
District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh (Accused)
---- Respondents
For Petitioners : Shri Surfaraj Khan, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 : Shri A.N. Bhakta, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2 : None appears though served.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
01.11.2022
Heard.
1) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has
been filed challenging therein the order passed by the VII th
Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja in
Criminal Revision No. 71 of 2018 dated 13.11.2019 whereby the
challenge to order of taking cognizance of the complaint case,
has been dismissed.
2) The case in nutshell is like that respondent No.1 filed a complaint
case against the petitioners and one Satish Singh/ respondent
No.2 making allegation that the petitioners alongwith respondent
No.2 - Satish Singh persuaded him for purchase of plot recorded
in the name of Triveni Yadav. The petitioners as well as
respondent No.2 allured respondent No.1 and they grabbed
Rs.18,48,000/- from respondent No.1 but the property was not
transferred in the name of respondent No.1, therefore, he
demanded the money back from the petitioners and respondent
No.2. Some amount was repaid back, however, most of the
amount has not been refunded by the petitioners as well as
respondent No.1, therefore, a complaint was made before the
police station. When no action was taken, a complaint case
under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed. The
complainant examined himself as well as the witnesses and
produced the documents in support of his case. Learned trial
Court after due consideration of the material placed before it,
registered the complaint case which was filed for the offence
punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
The petitioners herein preferred the criminal revision before the
learned Sessions Court against the order registering a complaint
case and the same was dismissed vide order dated 13.11.2019.
3) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the nature of the
dispute is civil but the same has been given criminal colour by
respondent No.1. Some cheques were issued by respondent
No.1 in favour of the petitioners and the complaint case for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act has been filed against respondent No.1. Two
cases bearing complaint case Nos. 1654 of 2016 & 1655 of 2016
are pending before the Competent Court. He further submits
that the main culprit is respondent No.2 and the petitioners have
repaid the amount given to them through RTGS and there is no
act of criminality apparent on the face of record and he prays for
quashing of the entire criminal proceedings pending against
them before the learned trial Court.
4) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits
that learned trial Court after due appreciation of the material,
took cognizance and registered the complaint case for offence
punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC
against the petitioners and respondent No.2. Learned Sessions
Court has dismissed the criminal revision preferred by the
petitioners. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India is not maintainable as the remedy would be petition
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to challenge the order
impugned.
5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
6) In the matter of Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co.
Ltd., reported in (2003) 3 SCC 524, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High
Court under Article 227 is confined only to see whether an
inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within the parameters of
its jurisdiction. In the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227,
the High Court does not act as an appellate court or tribunal and
it is not open to it to review or reassess the evidence upon which
the inferior court or tribunal has passed an order.
7) It appears from the records that the petitioners as well as
respondent No.2 allured respondent No.1, they took the amount
and denied to refund the same. Various complaints were made
by respondent No.1 but no action was taken, therefore, he filed a
complaint case under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for offence
punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Learned trial Court examined respondent No.1 and three other
witnesses in support of the complaint case and also considered
various documents. The learned trial Court after appreciating
entire documentary as well as oral evidence, took cognizance of
the matter and registered the complaint case which cannot be
held illegal or invalid. Further, this Court cannot act as Appellate
Court as per the judgment passed in the case of Sadhana Lodh
vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (supra), which has again been
relied in the case of Raj Kumar Bhatia vs. Subhash Chander
Bhatia, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 87. Learned counsel for the
petitioners has not pointed out any procedural illegality in
passing the order of taking cognizance by the trial Court.
Learned Sessions Court has affirmed the order passed by the
Magistrate, therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the
order passed by the Courts below.
8) Accordingly, this petition is liable to be and hereby dismissed.
No cost(s).
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Nimmi
