1 2025:CGHC:24729 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 714 of 2012 Dr. Harishankar Rai S/o Late Bhagwan Deen Rai Aged About 72 Years R/o Vishnu Bagan Ward No 13 Near Giris Degree College Jashpur C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. S/o Aged About 43 Years Through - The District Magistrate Jashpur Nagar , Distt. Jashpur C.G., Chhattisgarh 2 - Govind Soni S/o Khubu Ram Soni Aged About 41 Years R/o Vishnu Bagan Jashpur Nagar , Tahsil Jjashpur , Distt. Jashpur C.G. , District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. A.N. Bhakta, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. A.N. Bhakta, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No.1/State. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 31.07.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jashpur (C.G.) in Criminal Revision Case No.7/2012, by which the Sessions Judge has discharged respondent No.2 of the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120(B) of the IPC passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jashpur in Criminal Case No.40/2011 vide order dated 06.02.2012, whereby the CJM has framed the charges against respondent No.2 for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120(B) of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Harishankar Rai, purchased 7 decimals of land in Survey No. 212/1, Sumpur, from Dilip Singh Judev through a money receipt dated April 11, 1984, and built a house on it. His nephew, Ramnarayan Rai, also purchased 5 decimals of land in the same survey number from Dilip Singh Judev through a money receipt dated June 23, 1993, and constructed a house and boundary wall, occupying the land for 22-24 years. It is alleged that the Patwari, Govind Soni, document writer Prasad Sai Pankra, and Sub- Registrar Muralidhar Tamboli conspired to fraudulently sell the land again. The Patwari issued a forged sale extract copy, stating the land belonged to Vikramaditya Judev, based on which the document writer typed the sale deed, and the Sub-Registrar registered it. The complaint was registered, and during the investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, and documents were seized. The charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who framed charges against the 3 accused, including the document writer and Sub-Registrar, on February 6, 2012. Being aggrieved by the same respondent No.2 has filed Criminal Revision Case No.7/2012 before the appellate Court and the appellate Court has discharged respondent No.2 of the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120(B) of the IPC. Hence, the criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that discharging Respondent No.2, the learned Sessions Court relied on the statement of "Domar Singh Sahu" (Revenue Inspector) recorded U/s 161 of Cr.P.C. It is apposite to mention here that while considering for framing of charges against accused persons, meticulous scrutiny of statement U/s 161 of Cr.P.C. is not permissible under the Law. Moreover, the statement U/s 161 of Cr.P.C. can only be used for the purpose of contradiction & omission of the statements of the witnesses, which is matter of trial, therefore the learned Sessions Court has committed error of law in discharging the Respondent No.2, without entering into trial. Learned Sessions Court has passed the order only on the basis of imagination in absence of any legal demarcation report prepared by the concerned Revenue Inspector, which is not available on record. At this stage, how the learned Sessions Court come to the conclusion that the Respondent No.2 has not committed any fraud. He further submits that learned Sessions Court also committed error of law in appreciating the report of Hand Writing Expert, which was misinterpreted and was contrary to the opinion given by the Hand Writing Expert in operative part of the opinion, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. On 4 bare perusal of the Hand Writing Expert report, it is crystal clear that the Respondent No.2, Halka Patwari has committed fraud and tampered / manipulated the "Chhant" report (Annexure P-2), wherein, it reveals from the very face of report that the word "Rai" has been strike-out by the Respondent No.2, which comes within the meaning of "Fraud", therefore the learned Sessions Court ought not to have been discharged the Respondent No.2, without proper trial of the case, therefore, the order passed by the appellate Court is liable to be set-aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the appellate Court has discharged respondent No.2 of the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120(B) of the IPC observing that the complainant, Harishankar Rai, alleged that Vikramaditya Singh Judev sold land belonging to him to Ambika Soni. Even if direct loss is assumed to Harishankar Rai, the actual beneficiary would be Vikramaditya Singh Judev, the seller. Ambika Soni, the buyer, would not benefit either, as they paid for land that does not belong to the seller. In fact, Ambika Soni would also suffer losses. As per the statements under Section 161 of the CrPC, Vikramaditya Singh Judev sold a different piece of land to Ambika Soni after realizing the mistake. The statement of Revenue Inspector also reveals that Harishankar Rai and Ramnarayan Rai did not legally purchase the land or record their ownership in the revenue records. Given this, the Patwari 5 (revisionist/respondent No.2 herein) performed his duties without any apparent mala fide intentions. The discrepancies in the records occurred later, pointing suspicion towards the seller and buyer, not the revisionist. There is no evidence of the revisionist being part of a conspiracy or creating/using forged documents, therefore, the appellate Court has discharged respondent No.2 of the offence alleged against him. 7. Considering the pleadings and prayers made in the present revision and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the appellate Court in discharging respondent No.2/accused from the aforesaid charges, I do not find any reason to allow the criminal revision. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil