1 2025:CGHC:972 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 587 of 2018 1. Saroj Devi W/o Late Sanjay Jaiswal Aged About 45 Years R/o- Dayalband P.S. City Kotwali, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., 2. Vikrant Jaiswal S/o Late Sanjay Jaiswal Aged About 23 Years R/o- Dayalband P.S. City Kotwali, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., 3. Samridhi Jaiswal D/o Late Sanjay Jaiswal Aged About 25 Years R/o- Dayalband P.S. City Kotwali, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., 4. Shrividhi Jaiswal D/o Late Sanjay Jaiswal Aged About 21 Years R/o- Dayalband P.S. City Kotwali, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., 5. Vijay Jaiswal S/o Late Bajrang Jaiswal Aged About 48 Years R/o- Dayalband P.S. City Kotwali, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., 6. Ajay Jaiswal S/o Late Bajrang Jaiswal Aged About 46 Years R/o- Dayalband P.S. City Kotwali, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., 7. Jai Jaiswal S/o Late Bajrang Jaiswal Aged About 36 Years R/o- Dayalband P.S. City Kotwali, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., 8. Mrityunjai Jaiswal S/o Late Bajrang Jaiswal Aged About 34 Years R/o- Dayalband P.S. City Kotwali, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., 9. Smt. Meera Devi W/o Late Bajrang Jaiswal Aged About 78 Years R/o- Dayalband P.S. City Kotwali, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., .. Petitioners versus 1. Rameshwar Prasad Jaiswal S/o Late Bihari Lal Jaiswal Aged About 62 Years R/o- Dayalband P.S. City Kotwali Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- District Magistrate, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulshyan, Advocate For Respondent No.2/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.01.09 17:20:01 +0530 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07/01/2025 1. Heard Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulshyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Ms. Monika Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No.2/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 87/2017, setting aside the order dated 19.04.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in unregistered/2016 complaint case. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that a Complaint case under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent against the petitioners for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 467, 475, 120-B, 175, 179, 181, 193, 194, 196, 199 read with Section 34 of I.P.C in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G) bearing Complaint case No. Unregistered/2016 alleging that the petitioner is son of Late Bihari Lal and is in possession of Bihari Talkies situated at Juna Bilaspur land bearing Khasra No. 1/1 Area 40495 Sq foot, which was given to him by his father through a Will. Thereafter, Late Biahri Lal died in the year 1971 and later on when the business of Talkies was in loss, it was given on rent for sale business, further it was contended that there exist dispute between the petitioners and respondent for the ownership of the property of Bihari Talkies, and the petitioners have filed an application for mutation of revenue records before the Nazul OfÏcer Bilaspur bearing 3 Case no. 168/A/06/2013- 14 showing them as the legal heirs of Late Bihari Jaiswal which was decided in the favour of the petitioner vide order dated 14.06.2016. The respondent further contended that the petitioners have made false submission in the mutation proceedings by stating that Late Bihari Lal bought the property from Amolak Chandra and the since then the name of Late Biahri Lal was not mutated in the revenue records and further that the petitioner are the only legal heirs of the Late Bihari lal, therefore in this conspired. Manner by getting mutated the revenue records in the name of the petitioners they have caused wrongful loss to the respondents, hence the offence may be registered against the petitioners. 4. The Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class called for the investigation report from the police station City Kotwali which was submitted after conducting investigation in which it was mentioned that the petitioners and the respondents are descendants of Late Bihari Lal stating that Late Bihari lal had 2 wives, the petitioners are wife, son, daughter and grandson of Late Bajrang Jaiswal who is son born from first wife of Late Biahri lal namely Bhagwantin Bai, and the respondent is son of Late Bihari lal born through second wife, namely, Tarabai Jaiswal, and the respondent is in possession of central Hall of the property whereas the petitioner named Vijay @ Hallo Jaiswal is in possession of front portion of the property consisting of shops, therefore the dispute between the parties is family property dispute and is of civil nature and does not attract any criminal intent or act, which could be resolved by availing the civil remedies, therefore the learned trial Court dismissed the complaint of the respondent without registering it. The respondent being aggrieved with the order dated 19.04.2017 filed a revision application before the Session Court Bilaspur which was allowed vide impugned order dated 4 30.1.2018, whereby the learned Session Court has set aside the order dated 19.04.2017 and further directed the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate to reinvestigate the complaint and pass an appropriate order on registration of the complaint case. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is contrary to facts law and circumstances of the case. The learned Session's Court erred in law while coming to the conclusion that the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C dismissing the complaint of the respondent is bad in law and has been passed without any application of the mind. The learned Session's Court erred in holding that the trial Court while deciding the complaint case of the respondent has passed the order in a mechanical manner and as only dismissed the complaint as the civil remedy is available whereas the learned Court of J.M.F.C has called for the investigation report from the police station of jurisdiction and has relied upon the investigation report filed by the investigating ofÏcer, which has been prepared after the due investigation by recording the evidences of the parties to the complaint. It is most respectfully submitted that a civil suit was filed by the sister of the complainant before the Civil Judge Class-1 Bilaspur against the petitioners and the respondents who are descendants of Late Bihari Lal in which while deciding the issue no.2 learned Civil Court held that the respondent herein is not the successor of late Bihari Lal and it was further held that the petitioner herein are the successor of late Bihari Lal and subsequently dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 27.10.2007. Against this judgment Savitri Jaiswal filed a appeal before the competent Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 13.10.2008. Therefore, it has been categorically held in the civil proceedings that petitioner herein are descendants and successor of Late Bihari Lal, 5 therefore also the petitioner have not committed any illegal act by filing an application for mutation of revenue records. It is pertinent to mention here that no such act or any conspiracy for obtaining any wrongful gain has been done by the petitioners resulting which the respondent has suffered any loss, and the only act alleged by the respondents against the petitioner is that the petitioner have got their names mutated in the revenue records in a conspired manner by putting forth wrong contentions before the Nazul ofÏcer and the Nazul ofÏcer has passed the order of mutation without having any jurisdiction to do so, therefore none of the allegation put forth by the complainant consist any criminal act or intent and is purely of civil nature against which the civil remedies are available. The order passed by the judicial magistrate dismissing the complaint case of the respondent has been passed after evaluating the investigation report submitted by the investigating ofÏcer and has not been passed in mechanical manner as held by the court of the session while passing of the impugned order and remitting the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for reinvestigating the complaint and passing appropriate order for registration of complaint, such an order passed by the sessions court is bad in law and has been passed without evaluating the evidence available on record and by completely overlooking the fact that the dispute is purely of civil nature and no criminal act has been committed by the petitioners herein, hence the same is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned State counsel opposed the prayer raised in the instant petition filed by the petitioner, submits that after fully applying mind and examining the witnesses of the present case, the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) has passed the impugned order dated 30.01.2018 in Criminal Revision No. 87/2017, setting aside 6 the order dated 19.04.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in unregistered/2016 complaint case, the there is no any illegality and infirmity or any jurisdictional error while passing the impugned order, and therefore, the present petitioner is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. It has been further submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 that the petitioners have mutated their name in the revenue record of the land in question by suppressing the fact dishonestly that the respondent No.1 was son of "Late Biharilal Jaiswal". The respondent No.1 has filed a complaint case alleging the same and he adduced a number of documentary as well as oral evidence in support of his contentions. Almost all the documents submitted by the respondent No.1 has been admitted by the petitioners. The petitioners have submitted a false AfÏdavit before the learned trial Court also. But learned trial Court has not registered a Criminal Case giving a reason that Civil Suit is pending whereas it is very settle law that Criminal liability is different from Civil liabilities. If any Criminal act is committed, the case must be registered after lodging the report against him. The person/persons who committed criminal act can not be escaped from the charges on account of pendency of Civil Suit. Hence learned Revisional Court has rightly set aside the order dated 19.04.2017 passed by the learned trial Court. Therefore, instant petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions made herein and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 7 9. From the perusal of the records and submissions raised by the counsel for the parties, it transpires that the father of the respondent No.1, Biharilal Jaiswal, had two wives, Bhagwanti Bai and Tara Bai Jaiswal. Bhagwanti Bai's son is Bajrang Jaiswal, and the petitioners are his sons, grandsons, and other relatives. Rameshwar Prasad Jaiswal is the son of Tara Bai Jaiswal. Biharilal Jaiswal purchased 23,200 square feet of land in 1965-66 and constructed the Bihar Chitra Mandir, which has been closed for several years and is currently occupied by Rameshwar Prasad Jaiswal. The front portion is occupied by Vijay Jaiswal alias Hallo, the son of Bajrang Jaiswal. The petitioners have duly executed the transfer of name in the Nazool Department, there is a dispute between the parties regarding the ancestral property, Bihar Chitra Mandir, and the respondent No.1 can seek resolution through a civil suit for partition, and since the respondent No.1 has available civil remedies, it is not justifiable to register any offense against the petitioners regarding the disputed land, which is an ancestral property, and the present case appears to be civil in nature which might be sought through filing civil suit before the competent Court, thus, the present case appears to be a fit case for interference by this Court for exercising the inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC. The impugned order dated 30.01.2018 in the Criminal Revision No. 87/2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.), setting aside the order dated 19.04.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) passed in Complaint Case No. unregistered/2016 complaint case, and all consequential proceedings arising thereof is hereby quashed, and the order of the trial Court dismissing the complaint case of the respondent No.1 is hereby afÏrmed. 8 10. Resultantly, this petition is allowed. 11. OfÏce is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti