1 2025:CGHC:17997 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1136 of 2025 Vivek Kumar Jain S/o Sampatraj Jain Aged About 50 Years R/o Sarafa Line, Kawardha District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Tikaram Sahu S/o Baliram Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Cheemagondi, Police Station Kawardha District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 - Kanhaiyalal Maal Jamadar Tahsil Office Kawardha District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ---- Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. V.V.S. Murthy, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board 21/04/2025 1. The petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (in short “BNSS”) has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 07-01-2025 passed by the learned Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham, in Cr.R. VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.04.29 18:20:53 +0530 2 No. 16/2024, whereby the criminal revision filed by the petitioner is dismissed affirming the order dated 27-04-2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kabirdham, in unregistered complaint case (Vivek Kumar Jain v. Tikaram Sahu and Others). 2. Brief facts of the case emerge from the impugned order and copy of the complaint under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. that the complainant has purchased the land of Kh. No. 37/2 area 2.00 Acres and 37/3 area 0.50 Acres, situated at the village Cheemagondi, District Kabirdham, through two registered sale deeds dated 22-11-1996 and 04-07-1997. After its purchase, he got his name mutated in the revenue records and came into possession of the same. In. the year 2008-09, some dispute arose between the parties with respect to the possession of the subject land and a revenue proceeding was initiated before the Tahsildar, Kawardha, in which an order for possession was passed in favour of the complainant. The revenue litigation travelled up to Board of Revenue, and order is passed in favour of the respondent No. 1. Thereafter, the complainant filed a Civil Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction before the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Kawardha. When the respondent No. 1 came into knowledge of Civil Suit, he filed an appeal against the mutation order of the complainant and with the collusion of the respondent No. 2, shown the notice served upon the complainant and obtained ex-parte order in his favour and get his name mutated in the revenue records of the subject land. Thereafter, he made a police report and when no action was taken by 3 the police, he filed the application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court. 3. The learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. as it did not find sufficient evidence to direct for police investigation and dismissed the same on 27-04-2024. The order dated 27-04-2024 was challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 16/2024 before the learned Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham, which is also dismissed vide order dated 07-01-2025. The said order dated 07-01-2025 is under challenge in the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents with the collusion of each other, without serving the notice upon the complainant/petitioner, shown it to be served upon him and get an ex- parte order in favour of the respondent No. 1 and get his name mutated also on the basis of the said order. The act of the respondent requires police investigation as they have committed the offence of cheating and forgery. The learned trial Court has wrongly dismissed the application of the petitioner for want of sufficient evidence, which is erroneous, and the same is liable to be set aside. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. In the present petition, the petitioner has filed the copy of the application of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., which he had filed before the learned trial Court. From perusal of the complaint, there appears to be 4 no sufficient material which warrants the learned trial Court to direct the police to register the FIR and to investigate the matter. It is a dispute between the parties with relates to the land and various revenue, and Civil litigation is pending between the parties. The learned trial Court, as well as the Revisional Court, after considering the material produced before it and the law governing the field, passed the order, dismissing the application of the petitioner. After going through the entire material produced by the petitioner in the present petition, this Court is also of the opinion that the order passed by the learned trial Court, as well as the Revisional Court, does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity which needs the interference of this Court. 7. Consequently, the instant petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. 8. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to the law available to him under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to redress his grievances. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved