1 2025:CGHC:10638 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 783 of 2025 • Avinash Peshwani S/o Shri Suresh Peshwani Aged About 28 Years R/o Sheela Park A- 207 Police Station Sarkanda District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (On Bail) ... Petitioner versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Staton Civil Line Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Binu Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 04/03/2025 1. The petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 23.01.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 150 of 2024 and order dated 28.01.2023 passed in Criminal Case No. 2130 of 2021 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur (C.G.). 2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 19.03.2020 the complainant Suresh Kumar Bajpai lodged written report at Police Station, VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.04.11 12:45:19 +0530 2 Civil Lines, Bilaspur stating therein that he is owner of the land ad-measuring area about 4000 Sq.ft situated at Ameri. It is alleged that the petitioner and co-accused Kamal Kishore, for the purpose to have illegal possession over the said land, had demolished the shade of the Complainant. A report in this regard was made by the care taker of the complainant on 06.03.2020. It is also alleged that the petitioner and co-accused Kamal Kishore published an advertisement in the newspaper to the effect that they have made an agreement with the complainant to purchase the said land and thereby they committed the offence. On the basis of aforesaid complaint made by the complainant Suresh Kumar Bajpai, the FIR bearing Crime No. 220/2020 has been registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420, 427, 447/34 of IPC against the petitioner and co-accused Kamal Kishre and upon completion of usual investigation, the charge sheet was submitted before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur on 04.12.2020. It is submitted that the prosecution has not seized any evidence regarding commission of the alleged offence against the petitioner and there is nothing available in the challan to show that the present petitioner is indulged into commission of alleged crime, despite this, without any material available on record, vide order dated 28.01.2023 the learned trial Court has framed the chares U/s 420, 447 & 427/34 against the petitioner. being aggrieved by the order dated 28.01.2023 the petitioner preferred a revision before the learned 3 Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur and vide impugned order dated 23.01.2025 the learned Revisional Court has dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 23.01.2025, is bad in law, being perverse and erroneous, therefore liable to be set-aside/quashed. Along with the challan only one advertisement dated 04.03.2020 is available and the said advertisement was published by the co- accused Kamal Kishre Gupta in the newspaper. He also submits that here is dispute between the complainant Suresh Kumar Bajpai and petitioner in respect of subject land bearing khasra no. 448/49, 448/50, 448/52 & 448/53 total admeasuring area 4000 sq.ft. situated at Village Ameri, Tahsil-Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) and therefore the complainant has falsely roped the petitioner in this case. He further submits that the dispute between the complainant and petitioner is purely civil in nature and no criminality is attracted in this case, therefore the order of framing charges against the petitioner is bad in the eyes of law and it is well settled principles of law that the charges may be framed against the accused only on the basis of the prima facie material available on records and there is no material available in the challan against the petitioner, therefore impugned order passed by the trial Court U/s 420, 447 & 427/34 against the petitioner deserves to be quashed on account of non-availability of any prima facie evidence on record. 4 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that impugned order passed by the learned Court below, is proper, legal and strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity or illegality in the same. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of records, and considering the fact that on the basis of forged documents petitioner along with co-accused Kamal Kishore have illegal possession over complainant land, looking to the sufficient material and evidence produced by the prosecution, learned trial Court has framed charges against the present revisionist, which is just and proper therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court, hence quahsing of the same is hereby rejected. 7. In the instant case, as specific allegation has been made by the prosecution against the present petitioner/revisionist and even supporting evidence are also available on record and on that basis trial Court has framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 420, 447 & 427/34 of IPC. 8. In view of the forgoing reasons and considering the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), Munna Devi (Supra), P. Vijayan (Supra) and Manendra Prasad Tiwari (Supra), with respect to framing of charge and the scope of this Court for interference at the stage of framing of charge by trial Court, I do not find any 5 good ground for interference by this Court for quashing of the impugned order as well as proceeding arising thereof against the petitioner/revisionist. 9. The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE vaishali