1 2025:CGHC:24730 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 781 of 2012 Dr. Harishankar Rai S/o Late Bhagwan Deen Rai Aged About 72 Years R/o Vishnu Bagan Ward No 13 Near Girls Degree College Jashpur C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. S/o Through - The District Magistrate Jashpur Nagar ,distt. Jashpur C.G. 2 - Murlidhar Tamboli, S/o Bahuran Lal Tamboli Aged About 48 Years R/o Sakti ,distt. Janjgir Champa C.G., Presently Working As Sub Registrat Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. A.N. Bhakta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Dr. Saurabh K. Pande, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. A.N. Bhakta, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Saurabh K. Pande, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No.1/State. 2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 06.09.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jashpur (C.G.) in Criminal Revision AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Case No.6/2012, by which the Sessions Judge has discharged respondent No.2 of the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120(B) of the IPC passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jashpur in Criminal Case No.40/2011 vide order dated 06.02.2012, whereby the CJM has framed the charges against respondent No.2 for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120(B) of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Harishankar Rai, purchased 7 decimals of land in Survey No. 212/1, Sumpur, from Dilip Singh Judev through a money receipt dated April 11, 1984, and built a house on it. His nephew, Ramnarayan Rai, also purchased 5 decimals of land in the same survey number from Dilip Singh Judev through a money receipt dated June 23, 1993, and constructed a house and boundary wall, occupying the land for 22-24 years. It is alleged that the Patwari, Govind Soni, document writer Prasad Sai Pankra, and Sub- Registrar Muralidhar Tamboli conspired to fraudulently sell the land again. The Patwari issued a forged sale extract copy, stating the land belonged to Vikramaditya Judev, based on which the document writer typed the sale deed, and the Sub-Registrar registered it. The complaint was registered, and during the investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, and documents were seized. The charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who framed charges against the accused, including the document writer and Sub-Registrar, on February 6, 2012. Being aggrieved by the same respondent No.2 3 has filed Criminal Revision Case No.7/2012 before the appellate Court and the appellate Court has discharged respondent No.2 of the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120(B) of the IPC. Hence, the criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial Court must determine if there's a prima facie case against the accused based on the charge-sheet and supporting materials. In this case, the trial court found sufficient evidence to proceed against Respondent No. 2. The Sessions Judge erred in discharging Respondent No. 2 without allowing the trial to proceed, as meticulous scrutiny of evidence isn't permissible at this stage, therefore the decision of Sessions Judge to discharge Respondent No. 2 is unsustainable in law and the same is liable to be set-aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the appellate Court has discharged respondent No.2 of the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120(B) of the IPC observing that the complainant, Harishankar Rai, alleged that Vikramaditya Singh Judev sold land belonging to him to Ambika Soni. Even if direct loss is assumed to Harishankar Rai, the actual beneficiary would be Vikramaditya Singh Judev, the seller. Ambika Soni, the buyer, would not benefit either, as they paid for land that does not belong to the seller. In fact, Ambika Soni would also suffer losses. As per the statements under Section 161 of the CrPC, Vikramaditya Singh Judev sold a different piece of 4 land to Ambika Soni after realizing the mistake. The statement of Revenue Inspector also reveals that Harishankar Rai and Ramnarayan Rai did not legally purchase the land or record their ownership in the revenue records. Given this, the Patwari (revisionist/respondent No.2 herein) performed his duties without any apparent mala fide intentions. The discrepancies in the records occurred later, pointing suspicion towards the seller and buyer, not the revisionist. There is no evidence of the revisionist being part of a conspiracy or creating/using forged documents, therefore, the appellate Court has discharged respondent No.2 of the offence alleged against him. 7. Considering the pleadings and prayers made in the present revision and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the appellate Court in discharging respondent No.2/accused from the aforesaid charges, I do not find any reason to allow the criminal revision. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil