1 2025:CGHC:25159-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1876 of 2025 Ghanshyam Agrawal S/o Shri Dhaniram Agrawal Aged About 66 Years R/o Prem Nagar, P.S. and Tehsil - Prem Nagar, District - Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) .. Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department of Home (Police), Nava Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Superintendent of Police District - Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) 3. Station House Officer P.S. - Ambikapur (Kotwali), District - Surguja (C.G.) 4. Shri Umeshwar Singh Baaj Tehsildar, Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.), (Complainant) 5. Sukhmaniya Gond D/o Shri Dhursai Gond Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No.-02, Bhandarpara, P.S. And Tehsil - Prem Nagar, District - Surajpur (Chhattisgarh), (Original Land Owner) ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.06.18 18:54:59 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the FIR in question, bearing No. 595 of 2024 dated 06.09.2024 for alleged commission of offence under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the BNS, 2023 registered in P.S. Ambikapur (Kotwali), District Surguja, the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s family is a reputed businessman family having more than 20 years old business of ‘Hardware and Cement’ firm, namely, M/s Laxmi Traders, earlier the petitioner’s family running their business in the rental shop situated at Kharsiya-Naka, Ambikapur and since 2019, the business is running from the building which is constructed by petitioner’s family under 3 the instructions and understanding with landlord the respondent No. 5, namely, Sukhmaniya Gond upon the same piece of land for which the alleged FIR is registered. He further submits that as per the allegation levelled in the FIR, it reveals that the petitioner allegedly filed an application for mutation of his name on the piece of land measuring about 0.12 acre equal to 0.048 hectares out of 0.182 hectares from Khasra No.270/5 later on which is demarcated as old Khasra No. 270/1 and in present known as new Khasra No. 270/9 measuring about 0.048 hectares. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the said piece of land name of the respondent No. 5, namely, Sukhmaniya Gond is shown as landlord in the revenue records, the land was purchased by Sukhmaniya Gond from sellers of the land, namely, Shri Vikas Swaroop Singh S/o Shri Ram Swaroop Ram, and, Shri Vivek Swaroop Singh S/o Shri Ram Swaroop Ram both R/o Ambikapur by execution of registered sale deed dated 15.04.2019. He also contended that the seller and purchaser both the parties are belongs to Schedule Tribe community, it is also necessary to mention that the two attesting witnesses of the sale deed are (1) Shri Ram Swaroop Ram (father of the sellers), (2) Shri Rajeev Agrawal (son of the petitioner). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that one of the co-accused in present series of crime, namely, Md. Dastgir Ansari claiming to be an Advocate practicing at District & Sessions Court Ambikapur came under the contact of recent purchaser of piece of land during the mutation process/transfer of name of the property on the basis of registered sale deed dated 15.04.2019 from the name of seller Shri Vikas Singh and Shri 4 Vivek Singh to the name of purchaser Sukhmaniya Gond. He further states that during the process of mutation the Md. Dastgir being Advocate assured the Sukhmaniya for further transfer of the land to any person belongs to General Category, therefore, Sukhmaniya Gond disclosed to the Md. Dastgir that she is interested to sell the land on the name of petitioner. The Md. Dastgir assured for obtain the legal permissions from various ‘Revenue Courts’. He would submit that under the impression that since a reputed Advocate (Md. Dastgir) is assuring about transfer of land from Sukhmaniya Gond to as desired name of petitioner, and also assume under the assurance given there might be implementation of some new Law, Rules or by virtue of effect of judgment of Court of Law it can be possible. After confident assurance the Sukhmaniya Gond demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- from the petitioner and in presence of the petitioner being proposed purchaser of the land, the Md. Dastgir received cash amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- from Sukhmaniya Gond for obtaining legal permissions from Revenue Courts, payment of Court fees of registration, including expenses and Advocate's fees. Simultaneously one another adjacent piece of same size was promised to one Shri Ashok Agrawal S/o Shri Mahavir Prasad Agrawal who was also under concession with petitioner and paid the amount to Md. Dastgir through Sukhmaniya Gond, under the same terms and condition. 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after registration of impugned FIR dated 06.09.2024 and through publication in newspaper, the respondent No. 5 and the petitioner knowing that the so called Advocate Md. Dastgir is committed fraud, voluntarily adopted illegal procedures on the name of respondent No.5 5 and the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent No. 5/Sukhmaniya Gond filed a complaint case on 13.11.2024 against proposed accused Md. Dastgir, before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Class-I, Ambikapur under the provisions of Section 175 (3) of BNSS, 2023 for registration and investigation of crime for alleged commission of offence under Section 318(3) (4) of BNS, 2023. He further contended that after filing the complaint the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted the case on 18.11.2024 and directed the respondent No. 3, Station House Officer P.S-Manipur, Ambikapur to submit inquiry report on 30.11.2024. On the basis of the direction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Station House Officer P.S-Manipur, Ambikapur District-Surguja submitted an inquiry report on 30.11.2024 in which it was specifically mentioned that the proposed accused Md. Dastgir S/o Late Md. Siddiqui, R/o- Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj is absconding since last 2 to 3 months, during inquiry the respondent No. 5 submitted land records of her ownership, the Station House Office P.S-Manipur also recorded the statements of complainant respondent No. 5, petitioner and another victim, namely, Shri Ashok Agrawal S/o Mahavir Prasad Agrawal and conclusively reached to opinion that the proposed accused Md. Dastgir personating as an Advocate cheated the complainant and the both victims and obtaining cash amount of 12 lakh altogether. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 595 of 2024 dated 06.09.2024, the named FIR is registered against 04 persons namely (i) Ashok Agrawal S/o Mahavir Agrawal, (ii) Ghanshyam Agrawal S/o Dhaniram Agrawal (petitioner), (iii) Farukh S/o Abdul Rashid, and (iv) Zainul Hasan Firdousi. 6 During investigation accused Ashok Agrawal and Zainul Hasan Firdousi have been granted anticipatory bail vide MCRCA No.137 of 2025 order dated 30.01.2025, and vide MCRCA No. 617 of 2025 order dated 01.05.2025. One of the accused Farukh was arrested on 23.12.2024 subsequently granted regular bail by this Court vide MCRC No.1393 of 2025 order dated 19.03.2025. He further submits that after arrest on 23.12.2024 of one of the co-accused, namely, Farukh, the investigating officer completed investigation and filed charge-sheet under Section 193 of the BNNS, 2023 bearing No. 65 of 2025 dated 16.03.2025 against total 05 persons before Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Ambikapur, District-Surguja (C.G) for alleged commission of offence under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of which the accused namely (i) Ashok Agrawal (ii) Ghanshyam Agrawal (iii) Zainul Hasan Firdousi (iv) Md. Dastgir. The case of the petitioner is identical to the case of other accused except the accused Md. Dastgir subsequently who have been also arrested by the Police, thus, the petitioner contacted the co-accused Md. Farukh and requested for one set of photocopy of charge-sheet filed against him under Section 193 of BNSS, 2023 to understand the actual facts and allegation of the case. After reading the relevant papers it appears that the respondent No. 4 lodged an FIR for alleged commission of crime on the basis of Revenue Proceedings initiating vide Miscellaneous Revenue Case No.202407020700019/B-121/2023-24, parties ‘Ghanshyam Das Agrawal vs. Sukhmaniya’, arising out of Case No. M/Miscellaneous/16/R/B-121/16/2024 order dated 07.02.2024 passed by learned Board of Revenue. He also submits that as per the best of the information gathered by the petitioner the charge-sheet with 7 respect to the petitioner is not filed in the present case till date. He further stated that the impugned FIR is registered on the same date on 06.09.2024, without any preliminary inquiry, or, application of mind by Police concern, the FIR is registered without verifying the authenticity and simply based on written application filed by respondent No. 4. In fact, the petitioner is himself a victim who lost huge money. He also submtis that the third anticipatory bail application of the petitioner vide MCRCA No.822 of 2025 had already been rejected by this Court on 12.06.2025 and further, anticipatory bail application of the petitioner also rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, this petition. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that once the FIR has been registered, it has to be investigated and taken to its logical end. Thus, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned FIR. 10. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge- sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if 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, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 528 of the 8 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) or under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 11. In the well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Guidelines are as follows: “(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 to 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 156(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 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 every reach 9 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.” 12. In case of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill, reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Hon’ble Apex Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 13. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon’ble Apex 10 Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Hon’ble Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 528 of the BNSS or under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 14. Keeping in view the aforesaid law and considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the submissions raised by learned counsel for petitioner relate to the questions of fact and thus, cannot be examined by this Court in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS or under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The appreciation of evidence or the reliability of the allegations cannot be examined at this stage. 15. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 540, it has been held that probabilities of the prosecution version cannot be analysed at this stage. Likewise, the allegations of mala fides of the informant are of secondary importance. The relevant passage reads thus: (SCCp. 550, para 11) “11......It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all 11 probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with.” 16. From the above stated case laws it is apparent that the above stated contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be examined by this Court. The adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record, it cannot be held that the impugned criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with malafide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. FIR or criminal proceedings can be quashed only in accordance with parameters laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. 17. Further, from the perusal of impugned FIR, it transpires that as per the instructions of the Collector, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh, vide letter No. 831/Collector/2024, dated 05.09.2024, it is stated that the Revenue Board, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, has conducted an inquiry into the authenticity/veracity of the orders passed by the said Board in the following cases:- Case No. M/Vividh/16/R/B-121/15/2024: Ashok Agrawal vs. Sukhmaniya, Case No. M/Vividh/16/R/B-121/16/2024: Ghanshyam Agrawal vs. Sukhmaniya, Case No. M/Vividh/16/R/B- 121/50/2024: Falya vs. Ashok, Case No. M/Vividh/R/B-121/09/2024: 12 Zainul Hasan Firdousi vs. State of Chhattisgarh. After examining the original orders passed by the Board, it has been found that the petitioner and other co-accused persons have committed forgery by producing fabricated orders of the Revenue Board, Bilaspur. Therefore, the Revenue Board, Bilaspur, has directed that stringent penal action be taken against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. In pursuance of the above, the Collector, Surguja, has directed that an FIR be registered against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. 18. In view of the above, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, therefore, the present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction Section 528 of the BNSS or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to quash the impugned FIR. Hence, no ground exists for quashing of the FIR. 19. Accordingly, the present CRMP is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan