1 2025:CGHC:7990 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 202 of 2018 Ravindra Kumar Nanda S/o Late Nemnath Nanda Aged About 73 Years R/o Dak Banglow Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, ... Petitioner versus 1. Hemchand S/o Late Ranulal Sanklecha Aged About 54 Years R/o Sadar Bazar, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, 2. Praveen Kumar S/o Late Ranulal Sanklecha Aged About 47 Years R/o Sadar Bazar, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner :Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) :Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.02.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC for being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27.02.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) passed in Criminal Revision No.65/2016, arising out of the order dated 11.07.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari, PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI 2 District – Dhamtari (C.G.) in Criminal Revision unregistered/12, whereby the complaint has been dismissed by the trial Court and same was afÏrmed by dismissing the revision. 2. The prosecution story, in short, is that the petitioner has filed a complaint case against the both accused persons wherein the complaint has been dismissed vide order dated 11.07.2016 against the same revision has been filed by the petitioner. Therefore, dismissal of complaint is illegal and abuse the process of law. It is also pertinent to note that the objector Hemchand Sakhlecha moved application on 11.06.2014 under Sections 195(b)(1)(3) r/w 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for which no notices has been issued to him, though that objection was dismissed on 11.11.2014, but both the Courts have failed to see that there was sufÏcient material on record and documents filed by the complainant which makes out prima-facie case against both respondents and objector was respondent No. 1, therefore when the objector sue moto appeared in the case before registration of the complaint, then it ought to have seen that there was prima-facie case for proceedings against the both accused, therefore order of trial Court and revisional Court respectively are liable to be set-aside and case be remitted back for reconsideration to the trial court by looking evidence and document together for registration of case including report of Police Station Kotwali. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the revisional Court erred in not seeing documents filed in the complaint by the petitioner and also report of Police Station Kotwali and evidence of complaint and his witnesses which makes of prima-facie case for registration of complaint, therefore dismissal of complaint and aforementioned of it in revision are illegal. The revisional Court erred in 3 not seeing that there was prima-facie case for trial of the case, the trial Court ought to have issued process under Section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore dismissal of complaint is illegal, likewise dismissal of complaint afÏrmed by the revisional Court is also illegal, because both the Courts have not seen the complete records of the complaint case, wherein there is material document were available to substantiate the complaint, therefore both orders passed by trial Court and revisional Court respectively be quashed and case be remitted back for re-appreciating of evidence together with document and police report for registration of complaint to the trial Court. Both the orders are illegal, because it is perverse and against the materials available on record, therefore liable to be quashed and case be remitted back to the trial Court for reconsidering the registration of complaint. Therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He further submits the dispute between the parties is of civil nature and does not attract any criminal intent or act, which could be resolved by availing the civil remedies, therefore, 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. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. From perusal of the documents available on record and from the order/judgment passed by the revisional Court, it transpires that the complainant is the son of late Nemnath. Khasra No. 818 measuring 0.67 acre is disputed land, prior to which, revenue appeal has been 4 presented in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhamtari, and for fraudulently manipulating the revenue record, the complainant has sent a notice to the accused and former Tehsildar, Patwari and the Government under Section 80 of the CrPC on 07.02.2011, but no action has been taken till date, so this complaint has been filed. As per the Court order, accused No. 1 Jugga Devi has been declared eligible to get vacant possession of 0.60 acre land, but accused 02, 03 who are sons of accused A. 01, calling themselves the attorney of accused 01, manipulated the revenue record and conspired and secretly, without the knowledge of the complainant and late. Without making the heirs of Nemnath Nanda a party and without informing them, the transfer of land was done for 0.80 acre instead of 0.67 acre, the case number of which is 863/2004-05, in which the accused stated in the application that after the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, symbolic possession has been obtained and as per the map the land is 0.80 acre instead of 0.67 acre, therefore 0.80 acre should be recorded in the records and it was also told that some part of the land has been sold to Ajay Parikh and no one has been made a party to it and the order has been passed secretly and the record has been corrected fraudulently. In this way, the accused have committed a criminal act by increasing the area of the land by manipulating it without authority to take unfair advantage. Thus, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order, further, the dispute between the parties is of civil nature and does not attract any criminal intent or act, which could be resolved by availing the civil remedies, therefore, the instant petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and from perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned revisional Court, I am of the view that the revisional Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti