1 2025:CGHC:13023 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 985 of 2025 1 - Shiv Kumar Dwivedi S/o Late K.L. Dwivedi Aged About 72 Years, 2 - Pankaj Kumar Dwivedi S/o Shiv Kumar Dwivedi Aged About 48 Years, 3 - Dhiraj Dwivedi S/o Shiv Kumar Dwivedi Aged About 50 Years, All R/o MMA-23 Near Airtel Telephone Tower, Padum Nagar Old Bhilai- 3, Tehsil Patan, District- Durg (C.G. ... Petitioners versus Chandrahas Pandey S/o J.L. Pandey Aged About 64 Years Address - D- 406 Maintri Nagar, Post- Sunder Nagar, Raipur Pin Code- 492013 Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) Permanent R/o Village- Gujra Fatak, Post- Rewa Lakhauli, District-Raipur Pin Code- 493441 (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioners : Shri R.K. Gomasta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on board 19/03/2025 1. Instant petition has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the learned 1st Upper Session Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 142/2024 GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.03.25 15:15:45 +0530 2 (Annexure P/1), arising out of the order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-3, District Durg (C.G.) in complaint Case No. 804/2021 parties between Shiv Kumar Dwivedi & Others Vs. Chandrahas Pandey, whereby the respondent has been discharged from the offence u/s 379, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. vide order dated 28.02.2024 (Annexure P/2). 2. Facts of the case as projected by the petitioners are that the petitioners have filed a complaint case u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court against the respondent for the alleged offence u/s 379, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. which has been registered by the learned trial court. The fact of the complaint filed by the petitioners is that the complainant no.1 has purchased the land bearing Khasra No. 430/5 area about 0.185 hectare on 13.02.1995 in the name of his son petitioner no.2 Pankaj Kumar Dwivedi and in the name of petitioner no.3 Dhiraj Dwivedi, land bearing Khasra No. 430/1 area about 182 hectare on 13.02.1995 by registered sale deed from the Chhattisgarh Vikas Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Bhilai-Charoda and after paying the entire consideration amount the possession was taken on the land. The petitioners demanded the copy of sale deed from President/office in-charge of the Chhattisgarh Vikas Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Bhilai-Charoda, who said that the copy has been kept by accused/respondent Chandrahas Pandey, when petitioners asked 3 for the copy of sale deed was not given to the petitioners by the respondent. 2(i)Due to irregularity and misconduct committed by the members of the society about the sale of the lands, the first information report has been lodged on 05.05.1999 against the A.E. Zebrial, Vinay Mitrra and others under section 13(1), 13(2) P.C. Act and 120-B, 420, 467 of I.P.C. was registered which is pending before the 1st Additional Session Judge, Durg. The respondent Chandrahas Pandey has formed a new society namely Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Sah-Samiti Maryadit Bhilai-Charoda and posted as a Manager and filed an application before the Nayab Tahsildar Bhilai-3 on 10.05.2013 for mutation against the petitioner no.2 & 3 on the aforesaid land and in the Revenue Case No. 275/A-6/2012-13 and Revenue Case No. 274/A-6/2012-13 and by cheating, the revenue order dated 26.06.2013 has been obtained fraudulently thereby deleted the name of petitioner no. 2 & 3 from the revenue records. 2(ii)The said society formed by the respondent is fraud society and in capacity of Manager he has signed in all the element of official records, in consequence the name of the petitioner no.2 & 3 have also been omitted from the revenue record. Due to negligence in the work, absence and misconduct committed by the respondent, he has been terminated from the services on 02.04.2013 by the Chhattisgarh Vikas Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Bhilai-Charoda. Despite removal from the service, he 4 has signed in the important documents on behalf of the society and filed the application before the Nayab Tahsildar on 10.05.2013. 2(iii)Original copy of sale deed and photocopy of the Rin Pustika was produced before the Tahsildar by the respondent which was false fake and fabricated and by virtue of these forged documents order was obtained from the Tahsildar. Further allegation of the complaint against the respondent is that the respondent has theft the original sale deed and Rin Pustika from the society and kept himself without any authority and that has been used against the complainant. 2(iv)Deposition of the complainant No.1 Shiv Kumar Dwivedi has been recorded by the learned Trial Court which states that at the time of execution of sale deed before the Sub Registrar, the respondent was present as a witness and said to take copy of the sale deed after one week. Rent of both the lands for the year 1987-88 and 2010-11 has been paid by the petitioner no.1, when the petitioners went to the Patwari office in the year 2013 to pay the rent where Patwari said that the mutation has been cancelled by the Nayab Tahsildar Bhilai-3 and the land is recorded in the revenue record in the name of Chhattisgarh Vikas Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Bhilai-Charoda. When the petitioners asked about the change of name in the revenue record from the society it was replied that the respondent has been terminated from the service of the society on 10.05.2013, thereafter he has 5 made another society of identical name and he has signed on behalf of the society. After appraisal of the evidence and material on record, the learned Trial Court has found that the complainants/petitioners have failed to prove the alleged offence committed by the respondent and the facts of the complaint is not proved, therefore u/s 245 of Cr.P.C. no case is proved against the respondent which is required for the conviction, therefore the learned Trial Court has discharged the respondent Chandrahas Pandey from the charge u/s 379, 420, 467 of I.P.C. by the order dated 28.02.2024. Petitioners have preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) against the order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court which has also been dismissed by order dated 29.11.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent, as an employee of the Chhattisgarh Vikas Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Bhilai-Charoda, was entrusted with the society's documents, including the petitioners' sale deed. However, he failed to provide the sale deed to the petitioners, committing criminal breach of trust. He further submits that the respondent was a witness to the sale deed executed between the petitioners and the society, Despite knowing about the sale deed, he kept the registered sale deed and Rin Pustika, causing economic loss and deprivation of the petitioners' title to the land. He would submit that the respondent formed a fake society with an identical name and became its Manager, filing an application to correct the 6 revenue record, which led to the petitioners' names being struck off the record. He would submit that the respondent's actions constitute a criminal offence under Section 420 of the IPC. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow this petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents filed along with the petition. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also considering the finding recorded by the revisional court that witness Shiv Kumar Dwivedi (Complainant No.1) has stated in para 20 of his cross-examination that the order of the Naib Tehsildar has been presented, it is not fabricated and he has stated in para 22 of his cross-examination that no receipt has been presented in respect of the amount deposited in the institution in connection with the purchase of land. Thus this witness himself is stating that the receipt of depositing the amount in connection with the purchase of land has not been presented by him. Similarly, this witness has stated in para 26 of his cross-examination that on the date of purchase of the land for his two sons, neither he nor his two sons were present in the Registry Office. In such a situation, how it can be believed that the registration proceedings were done on the said date. Similarly, this witness has stated in para 29 of his cross- examination that no deed has been presented by him in relation to the purchase and sale of the land purchased for his sons, regarding which the complaint has been filed. Thus, when any 7 deed on the basis of which or in relation to which the crime is said to have been committed, the said document itself was not presented before the trial court. In such a situation, when the original deed itself has not been presented, how it can be believed that the said deed was executed and any crime has been committed in relation to that deed. Similarly, this witness has stated in para 13 of his cross-examination that after investigation, the police had found in its report that the dispute is of civil nature. In this way, no case was found to be made out against the accused in the police report and the trial court also dismissed the complaint on the ground that no case was made out against the accused in the case. 6. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality and infirmity in the order passed by the revisional Court as well as the trial Court and there is no any ground to set aside the order passed by the Courts below. 7. Accordingly, the instant CrMP is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) gouri JUDGE