1 2025:CGHC:12544 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 949 of 2025 Devnarayan Awdhiya S/o Anantram Awdhiya Aged About 61 Years R/o Village- Taku- raintola Police Station Patan, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Durg District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Prakash Gupta S/o Rajendra Prasad Gupta Aged About 45 Years R/o Pachpanth Chowk, Lakhenagar, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Rohishek Verma, Advocate For State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 17.03.2025 1. The petitioner has preferred this instant petition under Section 528 of the BNSS,2023 being aggrieved by the order dated 11.09.2024(Annexure P/1) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Patan district Duurg C.G. in CRR No. 235 off 2024, whereby the learned Trial Court has affirmed the order dated 08.07.2024(Annexure P/2) passed by learned JMFC rejecting the application for supurdnama filed by the petitioner for obtaining the copy of the Rin Pustika in interim custody. 2. The case in nutshell is that on 28.05.2018 an FIR No. 92 of 2018 was registered at Police Station Patan, Durg for the offence punishable under Section 420,467,468,471 and 34 of Indian Penal 2 Code against the present petitioner and co-accused person on the allegation that the petitioner and the co-accused persons have defrauded the complainant and other similarly placed individuals as they have attempted to sell the same property to different persons and thereafter have refused to execute the sale deed. Pursuant to the said FIR Criminal Case No. 473 of 2018 was registered and the same is pending. On 04.12.2020 petitioner preferred an application under Section 451 of CrPC before the learned Trial Court for release of his rin pustika bearing no.. 514710 and 448187. learned trial court vide order dated 19.09.2019 dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the same is necessary for adjudication of the present dispute. Against the same a revision was preferred by the petitioner however, by the impugned order dated 11.09.2024 learned Revisional Court refused to interfere with the illegal order passed by the learned Magistrate. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no likelihood that the trial will be completed soon and confiscation fo the rin pustika for such a long period affects the life and livelihood of the petitioner and his family members. The present dispute between the parties relates to a breach of contract and at best non payment of the amount. A mere breach of contract, by one of the parties, would not attract prosecution for criminal offence in every case. In the present case the complainant has attempted to give criminal color to the civil dispute which is impermissible in law. Hence he pleads to allow the present petition by quashing the 3 order dated 11.09.2024 and 08.07.2024 and further direct for release of rin pustika, bearing no. 514710 and 448187 in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have heard both the respective parties and perused the entire records with utmost circumspection. 6. In the instant case, it is pertinent to mention the most important fact of the case that the petitioner has a right to raise any other grounds and also reserving to submit all relevant documents and it is also necessary to note that no useful purpose would be served if the said Rin Pustika bearing no. 514710 and 448187 be released to the petitioner, who is claiming himself to be the owner of the pustika, so that he can use it. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition is allowed and the order dated 11.09.2024 passed in CRR No. 235 of 2024b and order dated 08.07.2024 passed in Cr. Case no. 473 of 2018 is hereby set aside. In view of the above, it is directed that the said rin pustika be immediately be released in favour of the petitioner as interim custody after submitting certified copy of the said Rin Pustika on the following condition that the petitioner would furnish a sum of Rs.5,000/- as supurdnama in the concerned Trial Court, keeping in view that there must not be any alteration in the physical appearance of the said rin pustika. It is also pertinent that the said rin pustika shall be submitted by the petitioner itself on its 4 own cost, if need so arises. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the present petition is allowed. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Alfiza