1 2025:CGHC:2506 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1490 of 2018 Jafar Mohammad S/o Late Jan Mohammad Aged About 60 Years Retired S.E.C.L. Employee, R/o Madhya Nagari Chowk, Opposite Dr. Rai Banglow Masanganj, Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Lines Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Jahan Mohammad S/o Late Yatim Mohammad @ Janmohammad Aged About 25 Years R/o- Village Chorbhatti Khurd, Police Station Chakarbhata, Tahsil Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Fariyad Bee @ Shahjadi Begum W/o Majid Khan Aged About 40 Years R/o- Village Chorbhatti Khurd, Police Station Chakarbhata, Tahsil Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., 3. Diljan Mohammad @ Bagulla S/o Late Yatim Mohammad @ Janmohammad Aged About 30 Years R/o- Village Chorbhatti Khurd, Police Station Chakarbhata, Tahsil Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. Ramjan Bee W/o Late Yatim Mohammad @ Janmohammad Aged About 55 Years R/o- Village Chorbhatti Khurd, Police Station Chakarbhata, Tahsil Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 5. Amjad Khan S/o Shafi Shah @ Shafi Mohammad Aged About 30 Years R/o- Village Chorbhatti Khurd, Police Station Chakarbhata, Tahsil Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6. Anwar @ Abdul Karim S/o Mohammad Shafi Aged About 41 Years R/o- Village Chorbhatti Khurd, Police Station Chakarbhata, Tahsil Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7. Komal Prasad S/o Dhajaram Suryavanshi Aged About 35 Years R/o- Village Chorbhatti Khurd, Police Station Chakarbhata, Tahsil Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 8. Amritlal S/o Chhedilal Aged About 42 Years Caste Kurmi, R/o- Podi, Police Station Chakarbhata, Tahsil Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 9. Smt. Kamla Yadav Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Chorbhatti Kala, Police Station Chakarbhatha, Tahsil- Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 10. Rohit Prasad Sahu Patwari, Circle No. 28 (50), Tahsil Takhatpur, R/o- Nutan Chowk Near Satya Agency, Police Station Sarkanda, Tahsil Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 11. Ramesh Yadav Document Writer, Sub Registrar OfÏcer, Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 12.Smt. Rupali Bose Shrivastava Working As Sub Registrar And Posted At OfÏce Of Sub Registrar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 13.State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Secretary, Department Of Home Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 14. Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent(s) For Petitioner :Mr. Ahmad Husain, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 :Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate. For Respondent Nos 13 and 14 :Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15/01/2025 1. Heard Mr. Ahmad Husain, learned cousnel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 to 9 as well as Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State Nos. 13 and 14. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following prayer:- “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be partly set-aside and may register FIR/crime against all respondent Nos. 1 to 12 under Section 185, 191, 419, 420, 467, 468, 4 471, 511, 506 and read with section 120-B of the IPC., in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is resident of Masanganj Bilaspur (C.G.) his predecessor's herditament property is situated in village Chorbhatti, District Bilaspur bearing khasra Nos. 1561/1, 1562/2 and 1863/1 area 1.50, 0.36, 0.66 acre total area 2.52, after the death of his father Janmohammad son of Taki Mohammad, petitioner got the property along with his mother Jinnat Bee and elder sister Shahjadi Begum vide mutation No. 25 order dated 12.02.1992, simultaneously in the village Chorbhatti, his elder sister's self acquired property bearing khasra No. 1544/3, area 0.53 acre was maintained in revenue records continuously till 2015 in Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, but in manual records of halka patwari village Chorbhatti, upto 2012. The respondent No. 1 to 4 collision with respondent No. 5 to 6 without informed to petitioner filed a revenue case No. 41/A-6A/2007-08 order dated 26.12.2008 (Parties Diljan Mohd. and other Vs. State) stating inter-alia in application before Tahsildar Takhatpur, Sub Tahsil Ganiyari that respondent No. 1 to 4 are legal heirs of the deceased Janmohammad and respondent No. 1 Jahan Mohammad's name is wrongly entered in the revenue record as Jafar Mohammad (The petitioner's name) so to be correct as Jahan Mohammad as well as respondent No. 2 to 4 are heir of Janmohammad respondent No. 3 is second wife of Jan Mohammad and first wife Jinnat Bee is died. Issueless last 13 years ago while respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are not a legal heirs of Jan Mohammad son of Taki Mohammad, resident of 5 Bilaspur, they all are of legal heirs of Jan Mohammad son of Habib Khan, resident of Chorbhatti their revenue records are also maintained by Tahsildar separately. The pedigree of petitioner and respondent Nos. 1 to 4 is into to different. The respondent No. 6 with collusion made as witness of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and after aforesaid alleged mutation respondent Nos. 5 to 12 with collision conspiracy, willfully and decisively as witness, document writer illegal transferred the property in the name of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. The petitioner was continuously cultivating in disputed land till 2015 crop year. The petitioner's elder sister Shahjadi Begam died in the year 2004 and his mother died, in the year 2013 when the petitioner peasant (Adhiyadar) Genduram informed first time in July 2015 to petitioner regarding crime of respondent Nos. 1 to 12 then petitioner craves to register FIR to respondent Nos. 14 and thana civil line Bilaspur also against the respondent No. 1 to 12, but no action on the part of respondent Nos. 1 to 12 thereafter, petitioner moved a complaint case before learned CJM Bilaspur. but complaint case was dismissed by the learned C.J.M. thereafter, the petitioner filed first criminal revision before learned Sessions Judge Bilaspur, which was allowed partly and directed to C.J.M. Bilaspur to pass sufficient order in complaint case of petitioner. The learned C.J.M. passed the order dated 15.09.2017, but registered crime against respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 under Section 420 of the I.P.C. only. Thereafter, the petitioner filed second criminal revision case before the learned First Upper Sessions Judge Bilaspur, which was partly allowed and 6 consolidating criminal revision case of respondent No. 1 No. 215/2017 rejected. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is contrary being illegal as per the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that on the basis of above petitioner's documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Court and learned trial Court erred in law and facts both while passing the impugned orders which is illegal, erroneous and liable to be set-aside. The learned Sessions Court should have consider the explanation given by the petitioner / applicant in criminal revision that complaint case filed by the petitioner is prima facie, in which involvement and conspiracy of respondents No. 5 to 12 is peculiar in aforesaid crime under Section 185, 191, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 511 and 506(B) read with under section 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code despite learned Sessions Court held that respondents Nos. 5 to 12 are not show involvation and participation and conspiracy in this stage and also held that order passed by the learned trial Court is not illegal, which is erroneous and the same is liable to be set- aside. He further submit that the learned Sessions Court should also have look and consider that the petitioner produced documents in complaint case before the learned trial Court the entire revenue case No. 41-A-6A/2007-08 which was moved by the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 for record correction before the Naib Tahsildar Ganiyari, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Annexure P-8) wherein enclosed order sheet dated 15.04.2008 to order dated 26.12.2008 application for mutation regarding correction along with affidavit of respondent 7 No. 2. The learned Sessions Judge have not look and examine the order sheet dated 21.05.2008 in which respondent No. 6 was present on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 even his signature also executed before Naib Tahsildar and same in affidavit of respondent No. 2 dated 14.07.2008 therein respondent No. 6 as witness. In this connection respondent No. 5 is real younger brother of respondent No. 6, both are son of Safi Mohammad resident of Chorbhatti. After forged mutation record correction respondent No. 5 in his name transferred the land of the petitioner by way of forged sale deed executed by respondent No. 1 to 4, in which as witness made the respondent No. 6 to 8 in forged sale deed. After the executing of sale deed respondent No. 9 Sarpanch village Chorbhatti approved the mutation and respondent No. 10, P. H. No. 28 (50) mutated land of the petitioner in the name of respondent No. 5 without intimation and notice to the petitioner Bhumiswami, the learned Sessions Court also have consider that respondent No. 11 is document writer and respondent No. 12 is registering officer they all are involving and participated document making and deceiving transfer of property of the petitioner. In spite of this, learned Sessions Court partly allowed the revision and passed the order to register crime under Section 419, 420 of the I.P.C. only against respondent Nos. 1 to 4 only while all respondent Nos. 1 to 12 are committed crime punishable under Section 185, 191, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 511, 506 and read with section 120-B of the I.P.C. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 8 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order and submits that in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also perused the documents annexed with petition. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that after fully applying its mind the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) has passed the impugned order dated 12.03.2018 in Criminal Revision No. 229/2017, which warrants no interference by this Court. In the present case, charges have been framed and evidence is being recorded and there appears to be no interim order passed by this Court. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as by the revisional Court and the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the revisional Court has not committed any illegality, infirmity or any jurisdictional error while dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners. 9. Accordingly, the petition being bereft of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal