1 2025:CGHC:29715 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 911 of 2023 1 - Smt. Rachna Pandey W/o Sarvesh Pandey Aged About 34 Years R/o Maharana Pratap Chouk, Kedarpur, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Sarvesh Pandey S/o Dr. Umeshwar Nath Pandey Aged About 36 Years R/o Maharana Pratap Chouk, Kedarpur, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Dr. Umeshwar Nath Pandey S/o Late Vishnu Sevak Pandey Aged About 64 Years R/o Maharana Pratap Chouk, Kedarpur, Ambikpuar, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Alok Jaiswal S/o Kanni Lal Jaiswal Aged About 50 Years R/o Ramanujganj Road Ambikapur, Police Station And Tehsil Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr.Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State For Respondent No.2 : : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Mr.Shobhit Koshta, Advocate BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.07.02 18:53:07 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 2.7.2025 1. Heard Mr.Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1/State and Mr.Shobhit Koshta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 2. The petitioners have filed this petition with following prayer: “ It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash proceedings of the the fir no.246/2020 and proceedings of the criminal case no.3021/2022 (state of c.g vs siddharth mishra and ors) pending before the CJM, ambikapur distt. Sarguja (C.G.) and the subsequent proceedings initiated pursuant thereto in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this case are that on 16.5.2020, the complainant / respondent No.2 made a police complaint stating therein that his late father namely Kannilal Jaiswal had self acquired land bearing khasra No. 4804/3 (in name of his wife Kanaklata Jaiswal) and upon that land he has constructed seven houses which were given to the tenants and other accused Ramadhar Jaiswal. The petitioners and Siddharth 3 Mishra were also the tenant. It is further alleged that the petitioners and Siddharth Mishra along with other accused Ramadhar Jaiswal hatched a conspiracy in order to grab the land of the complainant and sale deed was executed by other accused Ramadhar Jaiswal in favour of petitioner No.1 in which fraudulently the boundaries of the land of Kanaklata Jaiswal was shown to be the sale property, wherein land bearing khasra No.4804/3 belongs to the complainant and his mother and with intention to cheat the complainant, the accused persons had fraudulently changed the boundaries in sale deed of khasra No.4804/4. It is further alleged that co-accused Ramadhar Jaiswal entered into an agreement with the complainant for sale of the part of land bearing khasra No. 4804/4 and advance was also paid, but co-accused Ramadhar did not execute the agreement. It is further alleged that co-accused Ramadhar sold the same land to other co-accused. 4. Admittedly, the land in dispute bearing khasra No.4804/3, situated at Ring Road Ambikapur, was originally belongs to Kannilal Jaiswal, father of the complainant. The father of the complainant namely Kannilai Jaiswal sold the land in question to Moharlal Jaiswal, father of other accused Ramadhar Jaiswal vide registered sale-deed dated 07.03.1969 and the possession of the said land with a new khasra No. 4804/4 was handed over to Moharlal Jaiswal. He had purchased the part of khasra No.4804/3 and after division of the said plot (Batankan) and after mutation 4 the same was recorded as khasra No. 4804/4. It is apparent on the face of the documents that the land was recorded in the name of Moharlal Jaiswal and he was in possession of the same, but due to typographical mistake khasra No.4803/4 was wrongly entered in the registry dated 07.03.1969, then another sudhar patrak was registered and the mistake was rectified as 4804/3 instead of 4803/4 on 18.03.1969. 5. Moharlal Jaiswal died on 10.03.1998 and after the death of Moharlal Jaiswal, legal heirs of Moharlal Jaiswal namely Harkesh and other accused Ramadhar Jaiswal had inherited the property bearing khasra No. 4804/4 by virtue of general succession and the revenue records were also corrected. Admittedly, on the basis of the revenue records in the year 2020 other accused Ramadhar Jaiswal was the owner of Plot No. 4804/4 area 36.5 dismil. Other accused Ramadhar Jaiswal being an owner entered into an agreement to sale the said plot area 0.8 dismil to one Rachna Pande and the registered agreement was executed on 29.04.2015. The earnest money was also paid to other accused Ramadhar Jaiswal. Ramadhar Jaiswal sold the land with the same map as annexed in the registry dated 07.03.1969. Despite of due execution of the agreement to sale and payment of earnest money other accused Ramadhar Jaiswal was not executing the sale-deed in favour of Rachna Pandey, therefore, civil suit was filed for specific performance of contract which was registered as Civil Suit No. 11A/2017. During the pendency of the civil suit the 5 matter was compromised and compromise decree was passed and was drawn accordingly and the said judgment and compromise decree has attained its finality as the same has not been questioned by any party. 6. Petitioner No.3 is the father-in-law of petitioner No.1-Rachna Pandey. After the compromise decree, the family arrangement was drawn and the decision was taken to execute the sale-deed in favour of Petitioner No.3. In pursuance of the said family arrangement the registered sale-deed was executed by other accused Ramadhar Jaiswal, S/o. Moharlal Jaiswal in favour of Dr. Umeshwarnath Pandey. By virtue of the registered sale-deed, co-accused Dr. Umeshwarnath Pandey became the owner of the property in question. Other accused Ramadhar Jaiswal had sold only 8 dismil of land out of khasra No. 4804/4 and remaining land is still with other accused Ramadhar Jaiswal. The residential houses are standing on khasra No. 4804/4. The complainant filed a civil suit against Siddharth Mishra who is residing in one of the house standing over the land in question, the said civil suit was filed for eviction and the civil Court has dismissed the said civil suit bearing No. A/3/2010. The complainant / respondent No.2 has filed the civil suit No.168/A/2021 against the petitioners which is pending before the JMFC, Ambikapur, Distt.sarguja. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.3 is the purchaser. Petitioner No.1 is the daughter of petitioner No.3 6 and petitioner No.2 is son-in-law of petitioner No.3. The allegations against the petitioners are that they have prepared forged map showing wrong boundaries of the land purchased by them which is prima facie not correct because it is for the seller of the land to obtain the land records from the concerned Patwari and to execute the sale deed in favour of purchaser. Complainant /respondent No.2 has also filed civil suit on the same subject dispute and, therefore, criminal case based on FIR on the same issue cannot be continued. He further submits the petitioners have not committed any offence as they are only the bona fide purchaser of the disputed land and owner of the land and other accused Ramadhar Jaiswal sold the land with the same map as annexed in the registry dated 7.3.1969. He also submits that there is no allegation against petitioner No.2 in the FIR and in the entire charge-sheet there is no evidence against petitioner No.2 and he has been falsely implicated in the present case just because he is husband of petitioner No.1. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed and further proceeding in Criminal Case No.3021 of 2022 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja so far as it relates to the petitioners deserves to be quashed. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the scope of interference that has been summarised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that if the FIR 7 prima facie discloses the commission of any cognizable offence the Court should be reluctant for quashing the FIR at the stage of the investigation. It is further held by the Hon'ble supreme court that if the offence is disclosed the court will not normally interfere with the investigation and permit for the investigation to the offence alleged to be committed and in the FIR prima facie discloses, the court normally should not stop the investigation. He further submits that the FIR for commission of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, read with Section 34 and 120B of the IPC was registered not only against the petitioners but was registered against as many as 6 accused persons. He also submits that the aforesaid FIR was registered on 16.05.2020, the investigating officer has conducted the investigation in an objective manner and after completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed before the competent Court. He contended that a bare perusal of the FIR and the chargesheet would indicate that there is ample evidence against the petitioners which shows that the petitioners are guilty of committing offences which are punishable under the provisions of the IPC. As such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with these petitions. 10. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 in 8 paragraphs 102 & 103 held as under: - “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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 do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (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 155(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 9 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 ever 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. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 11. The Supreme Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Sharma and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2016) 9 SCC 1 held as under:- 10 “35. While discussing the scope and ambit of Section 482 of the Code, a similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Kal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 wherein it was held as under:- “29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and 11 the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC: 30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling 12 and impeccable quality? 30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? 30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arisingt therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 13 12. In the matter of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673, the Supreme Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. It was held as under: “12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.” (emphasis supplied) 13. Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), the Supreme Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 626, observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty & 14 Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it was again held that where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be quashed, by exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 14. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioners are that they have prepared forged map showing wrong boundaries of the land purchased by them which is prima facie not correct because it is for the seller of the land to obtain the land records from the concerned Patwari and to execute the sale deed in favour of purchaser. Complainant /respondent No.2 has also filed civil suit on the same subject dispute and, therefore, criminal case based on FIR on the same issue cannot be continued. 15. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-stated judgments (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the allegations made in the FIR are inherently improbable and the evidence collected in support of the same does not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the petitioners herein. In the case in hand, malicious prosecution was instituted by respondent No.2 against the petitioners. 16. For the foregoing reasons, proceedings in Criminal Case No.3021 of 2022 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, 15 Ambikapur, District- Sarguja so far as it relates to the petitioners are hereby quashed. 17. The petition under Section 482 CrPC is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu