Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 22766 (CHH)

DEVI SHANKAR MISHRA v. AASHUTOSH MISHRA

CRMP/1900/2025 · 2025-06-19

Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:26042 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1900 of 2025 1 - Devi Shankar Mishra S/o Shri Durgashankar Mishra Aged About 38 Years R/o Pratapdev Ward, In Front of Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Aashutosh Mishra S/o Shri Umashankar Mishra Aged About 30 Years R/o Bhelwapadar Para, In Front Of Forest Office, P.S. Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Himanshu Mishra S/o Shri Kalishankar Mishra Aged About 25 Years R/o Kachora Schoolpara, P.S. Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Gunu Mishra @ Sakshi Mishra S/o Kalishankar Mishra Aged About 27 Years R/o Kachora Schoolpara, P.S. Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - A.K. Dixit Aged About 55 Years, R/o Govt. Awas Grih No. A.S.-12, In Front Of New Kanya School Tulsi Nagar, District- Bhopal Madhya Pradesh. 5 - Nitin Shukla S/o Late Shri Shailendra Shukla Aged About 25 Years R/o Manju Shukla, Medical Complex Telipara, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Seema Singh, Advocate. For Respondents : Not noticed. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.06.23 17:52:40 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 20/06/ 202 5 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District- Kondagaon (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 06/2024, which was arising out of order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kondagaon, District – Kondagaon (C.G.) in Criminal Complaint Case No. 00/2022, whereby the learned revisional court has dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that as per the revenue records, the house and shop built on 7,056 sq. ft. land in land Khasra No. 662/3 and 662/4 situated in City Kondagaon, Tehsil and District Kondagaon (CG) and the remaining vacant land are owned by the petitioner’s grandmother Ashok Kumari, who died on 04.06.2015 in village Kachora, Tehsil and District Kondagaon, on the basis of the mutation application submitted by the petitioner’s father Durga Shankar Mishra before the Nazul Officer, Revenue Court, Kondagaon. The above property was transferred in the name of the sons of the petitioner’s grandmother, Durgashankar Mishra, Umashankar Mishra and Kali Shankar Mishra, but respondents No. 1 and 2 3 have submitted an application dated 27.03.2017 along with a fabricated will dated 18.06.2014 before the Nazul Officer, Kondagaon and requested to register their names on the above property, whereas on the date of the said will, the petitioner's grandmother was extremely unwell and was not able to walk and was also not in a position to sign due to her poor mental condition, which was confirmed by handwriting/forensic expert Dr. S.K. Denge and it was clarified that the petitioner's grandmother did not sign the said will, thus all the respondents have committed the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter "I.P.C."), for which the complaint was filed by the father of the petitioner on 16.03.2020, on which no action was taken, so he filed a complaint before the learned C.J.M., which has been dismissed by the order dated 12.03.2024. Thereafter, a revision petition was filed, which was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 19.12.2024. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that both the courts below are completely illegal, erroneous and contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case. He further submits that both the Courts below have overlooked that the subject land is ancestral property of the petitioner and the petitioner’s grandmother Ashok Kumari 4 was recorded her name in the revenue record over the suit land and after death of the Ashok Kumari, the petitioner’s father Durgashankar filed application for mutation before the Nazul officer Kondagaon in which after recording the evidence and considering the material available on record, mutation order has been passed in favour of the Durgashankar, Umashankar Mishra and Kali Shankar according by mutation order dated 20.09.2016 to the C.G. Land Revenue Code. He also submits that the defendants No. 1 and 2 have prepared forged documents and executed Will in their faour on 18.06.2014 whereas Ashok Kumari died on 04.06.2015 and after 2 years of date of deceased, the respondents No. 1 and 2 filed delayed application before learned Nazul Officer without any objection against the mutation proceeding which is completely illegal, and not maintainable in the eyes of law. He also submits that Ashok Kumari was suffering from various illnesses for a long time and she was not able to put her signature, and as per the handwriting expert report dated 10.04.2019, the executed Will dated 18.06.2014 is forged and fabricated and hence the respondents are liable to be punished. As such, the order impugned is liable to be set aside, allowing the present petition. 4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner 5 and perused the documents annexed with the petition including the order impugned. 5. Learned trial Court and the revisional Court found that the report of the handwriting expert has been presented by the petitioner regarding the signature of late Ashok Kumari in the Will, but there is no basis to believe the said report, because in the said report itself it is mentioned that the expert has examined the photocopy document of the Will. That is, the original Will has not been examined by the expert, due to which the report given by him on 10.04.2019 seems doubtful. In this case, the validity of the Will is questionable, which can be resolved through a civil suit. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the material available on record, I do not see any illegality or perversity in the order impugned to interfere with the order. 7. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu