Gopichand v. Yugal Dhruv

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 1445 of 2018 • Gopichand S/o Late Shri D. S. Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Sarvodaya Nagar, Pachpedi Naka Tahail And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Yugal Dhruv S/o Shri Niranjana Dhruv Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Dulna, P. S. Gobra Nawapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Khilawan Ram Gond S/o Shri Govind Ram Gond Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Awari P. S. Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

3. Santuram Sahu S/o Sukhram Sahu Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Dulna, P. S. Gobra-Nawapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

4. Narendra Kumar Dhruv S/o Sukul Ram Dhruv Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Jhithridumar, P. S. Nahargaon, P. S. Gobra-Nawapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

5. State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri SK Mishra, PL for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 27/07/2018

1. Heard.

2. The present petition is against the order dated 28.06.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No.528/2017, by such order the learned Revisional Court has affirmed the dismissal order of a complaint filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C passed by the JMFC on 26.10.2017.

3. As per the case of the complainant, the complainant had entered into an agreement for purchase of land at Village Tarri, Tahsil Abhanpur and consideration amount of Rs.10 Lakhs was paid in installments and on the last payment of installment, the agreement was executed. The sale deed was to be executed after the permission obtained from the Collector, however, the Collector permission was not obtained. It is further alleged that subsequently it came to the notice of the complainant that by a WILL dated 18.07.2011, the non-applicant No.1 got the land transferred to his name and it was sold to Narendra Kumar Dhruv. It was stated that the WILL dated 18.07.2011 was forged.

4. On filing of such complaint, the learned Court below called for the record from the Police and the Police after investigation found that monetary transaction was in between the parties for purchase of land and on primary enquiry no cognizable offence was reported, therefore, it was dismissed.

5. Perused the document and the record. Taking into the facts of this case, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order of both Courts below. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. The petitioner shall have all the liberty to seek appropriate remedy as available to him under the law.

Sd/- Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu