1 2025:CGHC:36048-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 652 of 2023 Smt. Ganga Rai W/o Shri Rajesh Rai Aged About 42 Years R/o C-18, V.I.P. City, Saddu, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Line, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Shri Subhash Chandra Goyal S/o Late Shri Hazari Lal Goyal Aged About 63 Years S/o Late Shri Hazari Lal Goyal, Pustakalaya Road, Baxur (Bihar) ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 25.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 1/State and Mr. Ankur Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.07.26 11:37:47 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “a. Quash the impugned FIR bearing No. 0069 of 2023 dated 03.02.2023, filed at P.S. Civil Lines, Raipur under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. b. Pass any order(s) that this Hon’ble Court deems fit.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant claims to be the owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 146/31, Plot No. 11/3-4, measuring 4338 sq.ft., located at Pandri Tarai, Ravi Nagar, Raipur (for short, ‘the land’). The complainant further alleged that the petitioner, claiming to be the owner and in possession of the land, filed a suit for declaration, bearing Civil Suit No. 14-A/2011. Notably, the complainant was arrayed as a defendant in the said suit and had appeared and deposed that he would have no objection if the land was mutated in the petitioner’s name. Despite this, the suit was erroneously dismissed by the learned trial Court. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner, being in possession of the land for over 30 years, filed another civil suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction against one Pravin Kumar Sahu, who was allegedly disturbing her possession. This suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 174-A/2018. The disputes between the parties were settled before the Lok Adalat on 08.09.2018, and based on the order dated 08.09.2018, the land was mutated in the petitioner’s name vide order dated 07.03.2019, passed by the Tehsildar, Raipur. He also 3 contended that the petitioner subsequently sold the land to M/s Swasti Consultancy, Raipur, which in turn sold it to Mr. Akbar Khan, who is currently in possession of the property. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complainant falsely alleges that he came to know about the aforementioned facts when he went to pay the property tax against the land and discovered that it had been mutated in someone else name. Based on these allegations, the FIR in question was registered against the petitioner. He further submits that the matter is purely civil in nature, and the complainant has already filed a civil suit bearing No. 02/2023 before the learned trial Court, seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner, M/s Swasti Consultancy, and Mr. Akbar Khan. The learned trial Court is seized of the matter, and the FIR in question appears to have been filed by the complainant solely to harass the petitioner and arm-twist her by falsely implicating her in a criminal matter. He further contended that the petitioner has filed the anticipatory bail application bearing MCRCA No. 697 of 2024 before this Court which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 27.06.2024. 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant is claiming is that the document using which the property has been mutated in the name of the petitioner is a forged one, therefore, until and unless the said document is declared as forged by a learned Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, it cannot be said to be forged and thus, the impugned FIR ought not to have launched against the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 4 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of petitioner and would submit that once the FIR has been registered, it has to be investigated and taken to its logical end. Thus, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned FIR. 9. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge- sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) or under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 10. In the well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, the Apex Court held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Guidelines are as follows: “(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety to do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 5 (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 156(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can every reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 6 11. In case of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill, reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Apex Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 12. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315, the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 528 of the BNSS or under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 7 13. Keeping in view the aforesaid law and considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the submissions raised by learned counsel for petitioner relate to the questions of fact and thus, cannot be examined by this Court in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS or under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The appreciation of evidence or the reliability of the allegations cannot be examined at this stage. 14. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 540, it has been held that probabilities of the prosecution version cannot be analysed at this stage. Likewise, the allegations of mala fides of the informant are of secondary importance. The relevant passage reads thus: (SCCp. 550, para 11) “11......It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with.” 15. From the above stated case laws it is apparent that the above stated contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be examined by this Court. The adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record, it cannot be held that the impugned criminal proceedings are manifestly 8 attended with malafide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. FIR or criminal proceedings can be quashed only in accordance with parameters laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. 16. Upon perusal of the impugned FIR, it appears that the petitioner, along with co-accused person, allegedly prepared a forged Will in the name of the petitioner and other co-accused person, and subsequently, the land was sold based on this forged document. Therefore, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Consequently, the present petition does not fall into any category where this Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned FIR. Hence, no grounds exist for quashing the FIR. 17. Accordingly, the present CRMP is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan