1 2025:CGHC:1983 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 119 of 2025 Smt. Suman Paroha W/o Late S.K. Paroha Aged About 68 Years R/o Narmada Nagar, Main Road, Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Anil Rathore S/o C.L. Rathore Aged About 47 Years R/o Radhika Vihar, Lingiyadih Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. A.S. Rajput, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Ms. Binu Sharma, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 13/01/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 being aggrieved by the 2 NCR No.0650/2024 dated 20.12.2024 of PS Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 3. Brief facts of this case are that the applicant is widow lady aged about 68 years residing at place mentioned in the cause title, her husband namely S.K. Paroha died in the year 2019. During life time of her husband in the year 2012 he has purchased the land bearing Khasra No.1987 Rakba 0.60 acre situated at village Mopka P.H. No.19/29 Tahsil Bilaspur Block Bilha District Bilaspur (C.G.) by registered sale deed in the name of applicant from Jyoti Pashine. Late S.K.Paroha was died in the year 2019 left behind applicant and his two daughters. The daughters of the applicant shifted abroad since long back, the applicant aged about 68 years is living at Bilaspur with her old mother aged about 90 years. However, the applicant given Power of Attorney to respondent no.2 (Anil Rathore) to take care of above land, but she has not given authority to respondent no.2 to sale the above property without permission of applicant. As the applicant was in need of money then she enquired/verified about the documents (B-1, P-II) of above land in the month of August, 2024 then she came to knew that the respondent no.2 namely Anil Rathore has sold 1500 square feet land to Prashant Sharma, 2508 square feet land to Chandramouli Kumar Mishra and 6000 square feet land to Smt. Shachi Nigam totaling about 10,008 square feet land through registered sale deed out of 0.60 acre without permission and knowledge of the applicant and respondent no.2 kept the consideration amount and no any amount has been given 3 to the applicant. When the applicant came to know that the respondent no.2 has cheated and committed criminal breach of trust with her by misusing the Power of Attorney, the applicant approached before the concerned police station and made a complaint before respondent no.1 PS Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.). Thereafter, the applicant also approached before the S.P. Bilaspur (C.G.). In the month of November, 2024, the applicant has cancelled the Power of Attorney which was given to the respondent no.2. The applicant has made the complaint U/S 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. which is cognizable offence therefore, the respondent no.1 ought to investigate the matter as per provisions of Cr.P.C. / B.N.S.S., but the respondent no.1 has given closure report U/S 174 of B.N.S.S. without following the due process of law. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned NCR No.0650 (closure report U/S 174 of B.N.S.S.) dated 20.12.24 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. He further contended that the respondent no.1 has failed to see that the applicant is aged about 68 years old lady living along with her old mother aged about 90 years, therefore, she given Power of Attorney to respondent no.2 to take care of above property, but the respondent no.2 by misusing the Power of Attorney sold the above property without permission and knowledge of applicant and kept the consideration amount with him. He further contended that the applicant made a complaint U/S 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. which is cognizable offence therefore the respondent no.1 ought to have properly investigate the matter. Hence, it is prayed that may kindly be 4 allow this petition and set aside/quash the N.C.R. No.0650/24 dated 20.12.24 (U/S 174 of B.N.S.S.) and this Court may kindly pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to investigate the matter, in the interest of justice. 5. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. Considering the facts of the case, pleadings made in the petition and submission of learned counsel for the parties. This petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file the complaint case before the concerned trial Court under Section 156(3) of CrPC {Section 175 (3) of BNSS} or Section 200 of CrPC {Section 223 of BNSS} as alternative remedy available to her. 8. Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant