1 2025:CGHC:18442 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 975 of 2023 Chhedilal Chandra S/o Late Shri Ram Singh Chandra Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Thuthi, Post Office Thathari, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa (Now District Sakti) Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Jaijaipur, District Sakti Chhattisgarh 2 - Nankinoni W/o Lf Late Amrud @ Budhwa Aged About 70 Years Caste Chandranahu, R/o Village Thuthi, Post Office, Thathari, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa (Now District Sakti) Chhattisgarh 3 - Purshottam Chandra S/o Govindra Prasad Chandra Aged About 39 Years Caste Chandranahu, R/o Village Padahardi, Post Tushar, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa (Now Districtsakti), At Present R/o Village Thuthi, Post Office Thathari, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.04.24 19:13:22 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Y.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, Advocate and Ms. Pooja Loniya, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 23/04/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition against the order dated 25-03-2023 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 29/2022, whereby the criminal revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17-10-2022 passed by learned trial Court in M.Cr.C. No. 19/2022 is dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed a Criminal Complaint Case under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa. It is alleged in the complaint that the parties were members of a joint family, and the respondent No. 2 is the aunt of the petitioner. The father of the complainant and husband of the respondent No. 2 held joint property in their names. After the partition of the property total 2.77 Acres of land of Kh. No. 1/8 and 559/1 came into the share of the father of the complainant, namely Ram Singh. The respondent No. 2, with the collusion of her husband, get the said land recorded in her name during the lifetime of the father of the complainant and thereafter sold the said land to the respondent No. 3 on 11-04-2019 3 through the registered sale deed. The respondent No. 3 knew that the land belonged to the complainant, purchased the land from the respondent No. 2. The complainant made police complaint, but no action was taken on his complaint, and therefore, he filed the complaint case under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaijaipur, after recording statement on oath of the witnesses, and hearing the complainant, passed the order on 17-10-2022 and dismissed the complaint case holding that the transaction is of a civil nature, which cannot be turned into a criminal offence. The said order dated 17-10-2022 was challenged by the petitioner by filing a Criminal Revision No. 29/2022 before the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, and the same has also been dismissed by the learned Revisional Court vide its order dated 25-03-2023. The order dated 25-03-2023 is under challenge in the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the land which was sold by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No. 3 is came into the share of the petitioner/complainant, which was malafidely sold by the respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 3. The subject land was recorded in the name of the petitioner in the revenue records, yet they have obtained forged documents of revenue records with the collusion of the revenue authorities and sold the land. There is sufficient material on record which shows that the petitioner/complainant has been cheated by the accused persons. He would further submit that from the complaint, a cognizable offence 4 under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC is prima facie appears to be made out against the respondents No. 2 and 3, yet the complaint case is dismissed. Therefore, the impugned orders may be set aside and the learned trial Court may be directed to register the complaint case against the respondent Nos 2 and 3. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submitted that the transaction between the parties are civil in nature and from para 14 of the order passed by the learned Revisional Court, it reflects that a Civil Suit is also pending between the parties before the learned trial Court. Therefore, the orders passed by the learned trial Court and Revisional Court is absolutely justified. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. It is the case of the petitioner himself that the subject land was held by the father of the petitioner and husband of the respondent No. 1 jointly. There was a partition in which the subject land came in the share of the petitioner’s father; however, the said land was mutated in the name of the respondent No. 2, and she sold the land to the respondent No. 3 through the registered sale deed dated 11-04- 2019. During the pendency of the complaint case before the learned trial Court, an enquiry report was called from the concerned police station, which was submitted before the learned trial Court. In the enquiry report, it is reported that after the death of Amrood Singh (husband of the respondent No. 2) on 24-12-2017, her name was 5 substituted in the revenue records of the land in place of her husband’s name. The respondent No. 2 has filed an application for mutation of her name in the revenue records as legal heir after the death of her husband, and her name was duly recorded after following the due procedure of law. It reflects from the revisional order that a Civil Suit is also pending between the parties before the Civil Court with respect to the possession of the land in question. 8. From perusal of the documents submitted in the petition, there is no prima facie ingredients of cheating or forgery of any documents or using the forged documents as genuine. The Civil Suit is pending between the parties, and the transaction is purely comes under a civil dispute. 9. In the matter of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS) 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. 6 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) 10. Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Randheer Singh vs. State of U.P., reported in (2021) 14 SCC 626, observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., reported in 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 Cr.P.C (now Section 528 of the BNSS). 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegation reflected in the complaint memo and document appended thereto, this Court is of the opinion that the allegation made in the complaint does not fulfill the requirement of the offence of cheating, forgery of valuable security or using the forged documents as 7 genuine. With respect to the rights of the parties, a Civil Suit is also pending between them. Therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court as well as the Revisional Court cannot be said to be faulty or warrant interference. 12. Consequently, the present petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved