LAWS(CHH)-2017-1-131

SANJAY KUMAR NAIDU Vs. DHARAMCHAND JAIN

Decided On January 09, 2017
Sanjay Kumar Naidu Appellant
V/S
DHARAMCHAND JAIN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Sec. 482 of CrPC has been filed by the Petitioners, seeking for setting aside of the order dtd. 20/8/2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, whereby the said Court has ordered for registration of a case under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 294, 506-B and 384 of IPC against the present Petitioners.

(2.) The said order dtd. 20/8/2015 was further challenged by the present Petitioners before the Court of Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg where the case was registered as Criminal Revision No. 0000198 of 2015, and the said Court has also rejected the revision of the Petitioners, leading to the filing of the present petition under Sec. 482 of CrPC.

(3.) Shri B.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submits that it is not the stage where Respondent No.1 could have filed a complaint, as the facts show that the Petitioners have already sent the agreement entered into between the Petitioner No.1 with one Rajesh Prasad Gupta for the opinion of the Handwriting Expert for verification of the signatures on it and till the opinion of the Handwriting Expert is not received, the Respondent No.1 could not have filed a complaint at all. He further submits that at this juncture there was no prejudice caused to Respondent No.1 inasmuch as it is only the allegations which have been made in respect of the property belonging to Respondent No.1 which the Petitioner No.1 was trying to fraudulently sell to one Rajesh Prasad Gupta. Shri Singh, further submits that the said Rajesh Prasad Gupta has already filed an FIR against the Petitioner vide Crime No. 434 of 2015 at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, in which charge-sheet has already been filed in respect of the same dispute, therefore the Respondent No.1 knowing fully well of the case filed against the Petitioner should not have filed a complaint case separately against the Petitioners. He further submits that it is a case where there are two agreements entered into between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.1 at the initial stages, however, subsequently the Respondent No.1 has taken a somersault and denied the total transaction that has transpired between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.1 and even denied his signatures on the two agreements that have been entered into and the money that was paid by Petitioner No.1 to Respondent No.1. He also submits that for the same transaction once a case has already been lodged by the police authorities at the instance of Rajesh Prasad Gupta, the present complaint by Respondent No.1 could not have been maintainable at all. He thus prayed for the quashment of the order dtd. 20/8/2015 ordering for the registration of the complaint.