1 2025:CGHC:2826 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 945 of 2018 Vivek Chandrakar S/o Dhaan Singh Chandrakar Aged About 36 Years R/ o Village Karhi, P.S. Mandir Hasoud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. Arun Tamrakar S/o Late Guruprasad Tamrakar Aged About 52 Years R/o Near Omkar Marrige Palace, Banjari Nagar Kushalpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Rajesh Sen S/o Shri Ramkhilavan Shriwas Aged About 38 Years R/ o Attraction Men’s Parlor, Near Allahbad Bank Branch Sunder Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Rajesh Pathak S/o Rambahure Pathak Aged About 38 Years R/o Purani Basti, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. Shailesh Sahu S/o Omprakash Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Near Radhe Shyam Mandir, Daganiya, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5. Tularam Dewangan S/o Rambahose Dewangan Aged About 40 Years R/o Daganiya, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 6. Kamta Prasad Yadu S/o Puggu Lal Yadu Aged About 48 Years R/o Daganiya District Raipur Chhattisgarh 7. Sanath Yadav S/o Chedilal Yadav Aged About 41 Years R/o Daganiya District Raipur Chhattisgarh RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.29 14:26:12 +0530 2 8. State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Mandir Hasoud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 9. Vijay Chandrakar S/o D. S. Chandrakar Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Karhi, P.S. Mandir Hasoud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Biswas, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 01 to 07 and 09 : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate. For Respondent No. 08 : Ms. Subha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Biswas, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sachin Nidhi, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 01 to 07 and 09 as well as Ms. Subha Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 08/State. 2. The present CRMP has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “ It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 05.10.2017, and direct concerned police station to register an FIR and present the report before the concerned authorities in the interest of justice.” 3 3. Brief facts of the case is that the the complainant alleged that the respondents sold his land without his knowledge or consent, and that some individuals impersonated him and his co-owners to transfer the land. The respondents allegedly threatened anyone who would help the petitioner, stating they would face the same consequences as the petitioner. The petitioner reported these incidents to the authorities, but no action was taken against the accused. On October 15, 2015, the petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to register a case under the relevant section of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court directed the Station House OfÏcer to submit a report, which was filed on July 15, 2016. The report stated that the complainant had sold the property, but there were no photographs of the complainant or the respondents on the sale deed. It concluded that the matter was a land transaction dispute and that no case was made against the respondents. The police acknowledged that some individuals had impersonated the owners and sold the land but still refused to take action, labeling it a land dispute. The accused were informed by the police and filed an objection in the lower Courts. 4. On 11.11.2016, the trial court dismissed the complaint, relying solely on the police report and ignoring the fact that someone impersonated the owner. The Court held that the complainant had filed a frivolous complaint due to a land dispute, and no offense was made out against the accused. 5. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the private respondents as well as State counsel supported the orders passed 4 by the learned revisional Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in the petition along with the annexures annexed in the petition. 7. From the perusal of the order passed by the revisional Court, it was held that in the present case before the trial Court, since there is a reversal, the Court has already called for a detailed investigation report from the concerned Police Station on behalf of the applicant. in this case, it does not seem appropriate to direct the trial Court to investigate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as once an investigation has begun in relation to any complaint, proceedings can be taken in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After considering the entire discussion in the case, the order dated 11.11.2016 passed by the trial Court does not seem legally valid and justified. Therefore, accepting the present revision petition filed on behalf of the applicant, the order dated 11.11.2016 passed by the trial Court is set aside, and the trial Court is directed to proceed with the application presented on behalf of the applicant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering it as a complaint, and to take action in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the impugned order of the revisional Court is just and proper. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the impugned order passed by the revisional Courts, I am of the considered opinion that the order 5 passed by the learned revisional Court as well as the learned trial Court do not call for any interference and accordingly, the present petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan