An order issued by a court with no jurisdiction is void in the eyes of the law if a revision application is not maintainable before the Revisional Court. As a result, the Revisional Court’s order sustaining the learned Magistrate First Class’s order of complaint registration is likely to be nullified is upheld by the High Court of Chhattisgarh through the learned bench led by Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas in the case of Sanjay Kumar Vaid Vs. Champa Lal Vaid (CRMP 566 of 2017)
Brief facts of the case: The petitioner has filed the Cr.M.P. under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Kabirdham. The petitioner is the nephew of respondent, Champa Lal Vaid and the son of Late Kamla Bai Vaid. It is claimed that the petitioner’s mother and respondent jointly owned property in Kawardha, and that Municipal Council Kawardha acquired a part of that property for the purpose of road widening. An sum of Rs. 3,52,460.00 was paid to respondent after deducting the amount of TDS of Rs. 40,472/- for the same.
In 2012, the respondent filed a complaint with the Station House Officer alleging that the petitioner had illegally withdrawn an amount of T.D.S. by committing a cheating offence under Section 420 IPC that is refund of TDS was neither received by respondent nor Kamla Bai. The police submitted a report stating that the complaint was not deemed cognizable, and on February 25, 2013, respondent filed a complaint case under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. By order dated 13.05.2016, the learned Magistrate summoned a report from the concerned police station and, without reviewing the police report, recorded the complaint for the offence under Section 420 IPC. The petitioner filed a criminal revision with the Sessions Court, which was dismissed by the learned Revisional Court on January 28, 2017. Petitioner argue that the amount of refund from the income tax department is only payable to the PAN Card holder. No offence of cheating is possible as the Magistrate dismissed the petitioner’s revision without carefully considering the subject matter of the complaint, the documents on record. The Magistrate made an error of law by dismissing the petitioner’s revision without carefully considering the subject matter of the complaint and the documents on record. Learned State counsel has also filed a return in which it claims that the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class registering the complaint under Section 420 IPC against the petitioner is legal and justified because the petitioner has withdrawn the money through Pan No. and thus the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 420 IPC.
In light of the judgement of the Court in Amarnath Agrawal Vs. Jai Singh Agrawal And Ors. (WP(Cr.) No. 116 of 2013) decided on February 10, 2015, the registration of the complaint cannot be questioned before the learned Revisional Court. It is apparent that a revision application under Section 397 Cr.P.C. contesting the registration of a complaint is not admissible and the Revisional Court dismissed the revision on the merits in this case.
Thus, enough evidence against the petitioner to file a cheating case under Section 420 of the IPC (Cheating is defined in Section 415 of the IPC, and it is punished in Section 420 of the IPC).
Further, the petitioner has argued that if the complainant records the material relating to the payment of money into the petitioner’s account, only a case of cheating can be made out against the petitioner, and that this case cannot be considered in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others. The Revisional Court’s order is not maintainable, and the documents on record support the conclusion that there is no basis for interfering with the registration of a complaint. As a result, the Cr.M.P. is liable to be dismissed, and is hereby dismissed. Additionally, For the purpose of adjudication of the current Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the facts have been evaluated. The trial court is ordered to continue in conformity with the law, without being influenced by any of the observations made by the Court in deciding this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, and to determine the case within two years of the parties’ first appearance.
Judgement reviewed by – Pooja Lakshmi