1 2025:CGHC:35363-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 666 of 2023 Rakesh Kumar Rajak S/o Late Deenbandhu Prasad Rajak, Aged About 52 Years Head Master Government Primary School Ghuibhavna , Block Lakhanpur, R/o Juna Lakhanpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Lakhanpur, Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 2. Mahendra Pal Padwar S/o Late C.L. Padwar Aged About 42 Years R/o Lakhanpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent/ Complainant) ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 23.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 1/State and Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.07.24 18:03:08 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant 482 petition filed by the petitioner and the FIR bearing Crime No. 144 of 2022 registered at Police Station Lakhanpur, Ambikapur, District Surguja and the entire charge-sheet filed by the Police (Annexure P/1) and the subsequent criminal proceedings/case bearing Criminal Case No. 294 of 2023 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, Surguja may also kindly be quashed in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that one Mahendra Pal Padwar has lodged the FIR on 07.07.2022, in respect of the incident alleged to have been occurred on 31.10.2007. The FIR was lodged inter-alia on the allegations that the petitioner has purchased the land bearing Khasra No. 964/3 area 0.393 hectare, situated at village Katinda, Lakhanpur from its owner namely, Goverdhan, Murli, Vinod Bargah by playing fraud and without obtaining permission from the Collector. It has been alleged that the land in question was leased out to the father of Goverdhan, Vinod and Murli namely, Chamru Bargah and Tiranga Patta was allotted to him by Forest department. It has been alleged that after the death of Chamru the property was inherited by Vinod, Goverdhan and Murli. The land cannot be sold out without permission of Collector and as per Van Adhikaro Ki Manyata Adhiniyam 2006, 2007 Sansodhit Niyam, 2012, the land cannot be sold. It has been alleged that it is a clear violation of Section 165 (7)(b) 3 of the Land Revenue Code, therefore, the offence under Sections 420, 466, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has been committed by the petitioner. It has been further prayed that the sale deed be declared as void and the land should have been recorded in the name of the Government. The complainant has further prayed for registration of the FIR in view of the order passed in WPCR No. 366 of 2022. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant is neither the owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 964 area 0.393 hectare situated at village Katinda, Lakhanpur nor he is having any right or interest in the said property. The complainant has no relation with the owners of the land. He further submits that the land bearing Khasra No. 964 total area 5 acres situated at village Katinda, Lakhanpur, Ambikapur at present District Surguja was originally belong to Chamru Bargah. The lease was granted to Chamru Bargah by allotment/Assistant Settlement Officer Ambikapur in Revenue Case No. 50/A-19(1)/1991-92 on 03.02.1992. After the death of Chamru Bargah the land in question was stand recorded in the name of the sons of Chamru Bargah namely, Murli, Goverdhan and Vinod. Vide registered sale deed dated 31.10.2007, 0.393 hectare of land out of 5 acres was sold to the petitioner herein for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/- and according to the government valuation Rs. 18,000/- was paid before the Registrar and remaining amount was paid in cash. After registration of the registered sale deed the name of the petitioner was also recorded in revenue records. The petitioner is in possession of the said land from the date of execution of the sale deed. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after near about 12 years, on 19.11.2019 a civil suit was filed by the 4 sellers namely, Murli, Vinod and son and daughter of Goverdhan, for declaration, injunction. The relief of declaration was sought to the effect that they are the owners of the property and further declaration was sought that the sale deed dated 31.10.2007 be declared as null and void and the petitioner/defendant No.1 be restrained from interfering with their possession. The said civil suit was filed on incorrect facts, and certain baseless allegations. He also contended that the civil suit was filed inter- alia on the allegations that the petitioner got executed the sale deed by playing fraud and by taking advantage of the illiteracy of the sellers. It has been alleged that they were not aware in respect of the execution of the sale deed. The entire suit was based upon the alleged fraud. The civil Court is examining the said allegations. The civil suit was filed on 19.11.2019 i.e. before 03 years from the date of the registration of FIR i.e. 07.07.2022. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the same date the sellers had sold the remaining portion of the land to Upendra Dubey, and subsequently it was sold by Upendra Dubey to Manoj Agrawal. One Ranjana Rajwade also purchased some portion of the land of Khasra No. 964 from Goverdhan, Murli and Vinod. It is not a case that, only the petitioner had purchased the portion of the land from Murli, Vinod and Goverdhan. This fact is apparent on the face of the statement of Manoj Agrawal, Upendra Dubey and petitioner herein. No FIR has been registered either against Upendra Dubey or against Manoj Agrawal, who had also purchased portion of the land of Khasra No. 964. He further submits that the allegations made in the civil suit are been examined/will be examined by the competent Civil Court. The sale deed was executed 5 on 31.10.2007, civil suit was filed on 19.11.2019, the FIR has been lodged on 07.07.2022 i.e. after near about 15 years and there is no plausible explanation for such delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kishan Singh v. Gurpal Singh, reported in 2010 (8) SCC 775 has held as under: “(21) Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the informant with all its vivid details gives an assurance regarding truth of its version. In case, there is some delay in filing the FIR, the complainant must give explanation for the same. Undoubtedly, delay in lodging the FIR does not make the complainant's case improbable when such delay is properly explained. However, deliberate delay in lodging the complaint is always fatal. [vide: Sahib Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 1997 AIR(SC) 3247]. (22) In cases where there is a delay in lodging a FIR, the Court has to look for a plausible explanation for such delay. In absence of such an explanation, the delay may be fatal. The reason for quashing such proceedings may not be merely that the allegations were an after thought or had given a coloured version of events. In such cases the court should carefully examine the facts before it for the reason that a frustrated litigant who failed to succeed before the Civil Court may initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the other side with mala fide intentions or the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the other party. Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustrations by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal court. The court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. In such 6 a case, where an FIR is lodged clearly with a view to spite the other party because of a private and personal grudge and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal proceedings, the court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law in the facts and circumstances of the case. (vide: Chandrapal Singh & Ors. Vs. Maharaj Singh & Anr., 1982 AIR(SC) 1238; State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 AIR(SC) 604; G. Sagar Suri & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2000 AIR(SC) 754; and Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. & Ors., 2008 12 SCC 531. (25) It is to be noted that the appellants' father Kishan Singh lodged FIR No.144/02 on 23.7.2002 through his attorney Jaswant Singh Mann under Sections 420/323/467/468/471/120-B IPC, against the respondents. The allegations made in the FIR were substantially similar to the allegations made by the appellants in Civil Suit No.1075/96, which had been decided against them. It is evident that the aforesaid FIR was filed with inordinate delay and there has been no plausible explanation for the same. The appellants lodged the aforesaid FIR only after meeting their Waterloo in the Civil Court. Thus, it is evident that the FIR was lodged with the sole intention of harassing the respondents and enmeshing them in long and arduous criminal proceedings. We are of the view that such an action on the part of the appellants' father would not be bona fide, and the criminal proceedings initiated by him against the respondents amount to an abuse of the process of law.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the Civil Court is already examining the allegations and the original sellers already filed a 7 civil suit, the complainant who is a third party and has no right over the said property and he has no relation with the original sellers has no right to registered the FIR on the allegations which are primary the subject matter of the civil suit. He further states that one of the seller namely, Vinod Bargah made an application before Sub Divisional Officer, Udaipur Lakhanpur on 24.03.2021. The said matter was sent to the Tehsildar Udaipur for holding an enquiry. On 01.07.2021, the Tehsildar has registered the matter. The said matter bearing Revenue Case No. 202107020500011/B-121/2020-21 is pending before the Tehsildar. The said matter is also pending before the revenue authorities. The report of Tehsildar dated 08.06.2020 wherein the admission of one of seller namely Vinod that the land was sold by Murli has been completely ignored. 8. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all of sudden on 31.12.2021, the private respondent came into the picture and he made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police on 03.12.2021 inter-alia on the same allegations which are the part of the civil suit. The private respondent has filed a writ petition bearing WPCR No. 366 of 2022 and the said writ petition was filed by suppressing all the material facts i.e. execution of the registered sale deed, pendency of the matter before the Civil Court, pendency of the matter before the revenue authorities and has obtained the order dated 22.04.2022 behind the back of the petitioner. The petitioner was neither notice nor he was aware in respect of the said matter. He also submits that the Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 22.04.2022 has passed an order for registration of FIR and the FIR has been registered against the petitioner. The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble Division Bench by filing a writ appeal 8 bearing WA. No. 440 of 2022 and on 18.08.2022, the notices were issued to the respondents on the delay application. Again it was listed on 04.01.2023, but meanwhile on 01.02.2023 i.e. during the pendency of the writ appeal the challan has been filed. The petitioner made an application for withdrawal of the writ appeal with a liberty to avail the appropriate remedy to challenge the FIR, entire charge-sheet and the criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of the charge-sheet. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after filing of the charge-sheet, the petitioner is challenged the very FIR on merit and the entire charge-sheet filed by the Police. The Hon'ble Court in writ petition has only directed to register the FIR, but the Court did not express any opinion on merits of the case. It was the complete prerogative of the police authorities. The police authorities were duty bound to investigate the matter on merits and since civil proceedings are already pending, revenue case is pending, the complainant has no locus to registered the FIR and the matter appears to be civil in nature, ought to have produce the Khatma before the concerned Court, but instead of submitting the Khatma, the charge-sheet has been filed and the police authorities virtually did not exercise the discretion as vested with the police authorities under the Cr.P.C. and it appears that they have influence by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPCR No. 366 of 2022 dated 22.04.2022. He further contended that if the entire charge-sheet, the material collected by the police, the allegations as leveled in the FIR and final report would be accepted on its face value, no offence is made out against the petitioner. The ingredients of Section 420 are completely missing, therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings would 9 amounts to abuse of the process of law and it would amounts to harassment of the petitioner. Thus, the FIR bearing Crime No. 144 of 2022, the entire charge-sheet filed by the Police and the criminal proceedings i.e. Criminal Case No. 294 of 2023 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, Surguja may kindly be quashed and all subsequent proceedings pursuant to filing of the charge- sheet may also kindly be quashed. Hence, this petition. 10. On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2 oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. On a specific query, as to whether the respondent No. 2 has filed an return/reply to the petition filed by the petitioners, Mr. Rao submits that no such return/reply has been filed till date, though petition is pending since 2023. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition. 13. We have carefully examined the pleadings and the documents annexed to the petition. Upon perusal of the FIR (Crime No. 144 of 2022), it is evident that the sale deed was executed on 31.10.2007, whereas the impugned FIR was lodged on 07.07.2022, nearly 15 years later. Notably, the FIR was filed by respondent No. 2, who is a third party with no rights or interest in the property and no relation to the original sellers. Furthermore, the original sellers had already initiated a civil suit (No. 229A of 2019) before the Civil Judge, Ambikapur, on 19.11.2019, against the petitioners, which is currently pending consideration. 10 14. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the FIR, charge-sheet and registration of criminal cases against the petitioners deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the charge-sheet filed against the petitioners bearing No. 211/2022 in Crime No. 144 of 2022 by the Police of Police Station, Lakhanpur, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) and consequently the registration of the Criminal Case No. 294 of 2023 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) are hereby quashed. 15. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan