1 2025:CGHC:4740 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1598 of 2018 Mohan S/o Ghasi Gond Aged About 55 Years R/o- Village Birutola, P.S. Chhikhadan, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Collector, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Barsan S/o Anjori Aged About 54 Years R/o- Village Birutola, P.S. Chhuikhadan, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ramsingh S/o Narsingh Aged About 44 Years R/o- Hatbanja, Tahsil And P.S. Chhuikhadan, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sada Singh S/o Dhelu Aged About 66 Years R/o- Village Birutola, Tahsil And P.S. Chhuikhadan, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ramgyan S/o Pancham Gond Aged About 60 Years R/o- Village Birutola, Tahsil And P.S. Chhuikhadan, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Mahesh Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Mahesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC for being aggrieved by the order dated 01.06.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. 12/2016 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.), arising out of the order dated 29.04.2016 passed in an unregistered Criminal Case by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.), whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned revisional Court. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that the petitioner filed the complaint case under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. for offence punishable under Sections 420, 462, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC inter-alia on the ground that the petitioner and two other persons had filed a civil suit No. 2A/2009 before the Civil Judge Class-I Khairagarh seeking relief that the will deed dated 14.05.1993 executed in the favor of respondent No.2 by Samaliya is null and void and not binding upon plaintiffs of that case. The respondent No. 3 to 4 are attesting witnesses of the will dead dated 14.05.1993. The accused persons with intention to grab the land of Samaliya prepared a forged will deed and same was produced before the learned Civil Judge Class-1 Khairagarh in Civil Suit No. 2A/2009. In the evidence of respondent No.2 to 4 it has come that the will deed was typed by a document writer namely Lakhan 3 Singh and stamp paper was purchased by respondent No.5. On 03.01.2011 first time it was disclosed by respondent No. 2 in his evidence in the civil suit that the will deed was written by Lakhan Singh. The petitioner enquired about Lakhan Singh document writer then he came to know that he died on 19.03.1989 whereas will deed was typed on 14.05.1993. Thus the respondent No.2 to 5 have fabricated a forged document and produced it before the learned Civil Judge Class-1 Khairagarh, showing it genuine. The petitioner examined himself in support of complaint. The petitioner submitted a copy of will deed dated 14.05.1993 before the trial Court. The petitioner submitted the copy of death certificate of Lakhan Singh before the trial Court. The petitioner also submitted evidence of Barsan and Sadasingh recorded in civil suit No. 2A/2009. Civil Suit No.2A/2009 was filed by Jhaduram, Kartikram and petitioner against person respondent No.1 and same was dismissed vide judgment dated 09.11.2011. The learned trial Court after going through the records and evidence held that the complaint appears to be of civil nature and also in judgment dated 09.11.2011 passed in civil suit No. 2A/2009 annexed with complaint, the learned Civil Judge Class-I while deciding the issue No. 4 " whether the will deed executed in favor of defendant no.1 is null and void being forged and suspicious?" has found not proved. Therefore the learned trial Court declined to register the complaint case and dismissed it. Police report was also called by trial Court wherein statements of witnesses were recorded. As per 4 Police report dated 28.05.2012 will deed was typed by Lakhan Singh and on 14.05.1993 whereas he has died on 19.03.1989. The petitioner preferred revision before the Additional Sessions Judge Khairagarh and same was registered as Criminal Revision No.12/2016. The Revisional Court Khairagarh in the order dated 01.06.2018 held that there is no document to show that Lakhan Singh was working as document writer in Chhuikhadan, the will deed might have been typed by younger brother of Lakhan Singh namely Ramakant Singh but he has not been examined, the State of C.G. has been arrayed as party unnecessarily and thus revisional court dismissed the revision filed by petitioner. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there is ample evidence with regard fact that the will deed dated 14.05.1993 was written by Lakhan Singh and he had died on 19.03.1989 but this piece of evidence has been ignored by the trial Court as well as the revisional Court. The respondent No.2 Barsan in his cross-examination in Civil Suit No.2A/2009 has clearly stated that will-deed was written by Lakhan Singh. Likewise the defendant witness Sadasingh has stated that will deed was written by Lakhan Singh whereas Lakhan Singh died on 19.03.1989. The learned trial Court as well as the revisional Court ignored the evidence of these witnesses and dismissed the complaint case. The learned revisional Court dismissed the revision on whims and caprice holding that the will deed would 5 might have been written by son of Lakhan Singh or some other person whereas there is admission of Barsan and Sadasingh that will deed was written by Lakhan Singh. Thus, the orders passed by both the trial Court as well as the revisional Court are illegal, erroneous and contrary to the evidence of the case, therefore, the same should be set-aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned judgment and order dated 01.06.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. 12/2016 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.), arising out of the order dated 29.04.2016 passed in an unregistered Criminal Case by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.), whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned revisional Court, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the judgments/orders of the trial Court as well as the revisional Court, it transpires that no good ground has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner in 6 the present case showing the importance of the present petition for quashment of the impugned order, thus, it is clear that after considering all the materials and after applying mind the learned revisional Court has passed the impugned order dated 01.06.2018 in Criminal Revision No. 12/2016, arising out of the order dated 29.04.2016 passed in an unregistered Criminal Case by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.), by which the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed, and there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, the instant petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar