1 2025:CGHC:50330 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 466 of 2019 1 - Atma Ram Banjare S/o Late Shri Padum Singh Banjare Aged About 57 Years R/o Village- Girhola, Police Station- Nandani, Tahsil- Dhamdha, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Khorbahra Ram S/o Kaliram Banjare Aged About 57 Years R/o Village- Girhola, Police Station- Nandani, Tahsil- Dhamdha, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District- Magistrate- Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant - Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.1 For State/ Respondent No.2 - Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate - Ms. Mukta Tripathi, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 09/10/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally. 2. This appeal has been preferred by appellant/ complainant under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging 2 order dated 25.2.2014 passed in revision petition No.261/12 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) whereby order dated 28.9.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.) has been upheld rejecting the registration of complaint case against the respondent No.1. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant would submit that appellant is in possession of land bearing khasra No.421, area 0.07 hectare situated at village Girhola, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.) since his forefathers. In the year 2011, appellant had harvested paddy crop on aforesaid land, but, respondent No.1 unauthorisedly reaped the crop and took the same, therefore, appellant/ complainant had filed complaint case under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class for registration of offence under Section 379, 294, 506B of the I.P.C. against the respondent No.1, but the, same was rejected vide order dated 28.9.2012 (Annexure A1), prior to its registration. That order was challenged by filing revision before the First Additional Sessions Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) bearing revision petition No.261/12 which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 25.2.2014 (Annexure A2). Learned counsel would further submit that respondent No.1/accused not only forcefully reaped the paddy crop of appellant/complainant, but also abused and threatened him to kill, despite that, learned trial Court has declined to register the complaint case and the same has been upheld by learned Sessions Judge, which is perverse and illegal. Hence, he prayed that instant appeal may be allowed by setting-aside both the impugned orders Annexure A1 & Annexure A2 passed by trial Court and learned First Additional Sessions Judge, respectively and the trial Court may be directed to register complaint case and proceed in accordance with 3 law. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that after filing of complaint case, appellant/complainant except himself did not examine any witness under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. He would further submit that impugned orders passed by both the Courts below itself show that disputed land is recorded in the name of respondent No.1/accused Khorbahra, in revenue records and appellant/complainant is also not in possession of that land. Revenue case has also been decided in respect of said dispute between the parties. Considering all aforesaid facts, learned trial Court declined to register complaint case which was also upheld by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, hence, this appeal is also liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Perusal of impugned orders Annexure A1 & Annexure A2, clearly show that disputed land is recorded in the name of respondent No.1/accused, in revenue records, though it is claim of appellant/complainant that he is in possession of the said land since his forefathers and he had sowed paddy crop on the aforesaid land, but, he has not filed any document to substantiate aforesaid fact before the trial Court, rather, revenue record filed by him before trial Court itself shows that disputed land is recorded in the name of respondent No.1. Even, if claim of appellant/ complainant is considered to be true, then also, it is found that there is civil/ title dispute between the parties in respect of disputed land, which cannot be given color of criminal dispute. 4 7. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the instant case. Accordingly, the instant acquittal appeal, sans merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Ayushi AYUSHI SINGH Digitally signed by AYUSHI SINGH Date: 2025.10.13 17:01:23 +0530