1 2025:CGHC:29314-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 258 of 2024 1 - Rameshwar Jaiswal S/o Bihari Lal Jaiswal Aged About 72 Years R/o Dayalband, Police Station - Civil Line, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - S.P. Rai S/o Late S. N. Rai Aged About 68 Years R/o Dayalband, Police Station Civil Line, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Station House Officer Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - The Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Sanjay Thawait S/o V.K. Thawait Aged About 52 Years R/o Yadu SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.07.03 00:04:17 +0530 2 Nandan Nagar, Tifra, Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Complainant) 5. Pratima Thawait (deleted as per order dated 1-7-2025) --- Respondent(s) WPCR No. 402 of 2024 1 - Pratima Thawait D/o Shankar Thawait Aged About 68 Years Resident Of - 72 Eastwood Road, Great Barr, Birmingham, United Kingdom, B-43 5rp, Through Her Power Of Attorney Holder Rameshwar Jaiswal, S/o Bihari Lal Jaiswal, Aged About 72 Years, Resident Of - Dayalband, Police Station - Civil Line, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs Atal Nagarl, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Station House Officer Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Sanjay Thawait S/o V.K. Thawait Aged About 52 Years Resident Of Yadu Nandan Nagar, Tifra, Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Complainant) --- Respondent(s) 3 (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Shivang Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No.4: None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 01.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shivang Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. 2. Since both the petitions arising out of same crime number and also involve similar facts and grounds they are being considered and decided by this common order. 3. The WPCR No. 258/2024 has been filed for following reliefs:- 10. 1. That, this Hon'ble Court be kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction to quash/set-aside quash impugned FIR No. 0200 of 2024 dated 08.03.2024 registered before Police Station Sirgitti, District-Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh for allegedly committing offence under section 451, 294, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. 10. 2. That, this Hon'ble Court be kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction to quash/set-aside quash impugned chargesheet dated 22.06.2024 for allegedly committing offence under section 451,294, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. 4 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court be kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction to grant compensation to the present petitioners for the mental harassment and loss of reputation. 10.4 Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court including award the cost of the petition. 4. The WPCR No. 402/2024 has been filed for following reliefs:- 10. 1. That, this Hon'ble Court be kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction to quash/set-aside quash impugned FIR No. 0200 of 2024 dated 08.03.2024 registered before Police Station Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh for allegedly committing offence under section 451, 294, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. 10. 2. That, this Hon'ble Court be kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction to quash/set-aside quash impugned chargesheet dated 22.06.2024 for allegedly committing offence under section 451,294, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court be kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction to quash/set-aside impugned criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3384/2024 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur. 10.4That, this Hon'ble Court be kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction to grant compensation to the present petitioners for the mental harassment and loss of reputation. 5 10.5 Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court including award the cost of the petition. 5. Prosecution story in a nutshell is that on 27.02.2024 at 07:00 PM, complainant (respondent No.4 in both petitions) was present at his residence and at that time Pratima Thawait, along with two others came to his home. He stated in his complaint that Pratima Thawait verbally abused him and questioned his right to object to the sale of property. When he informed Pratima Thawait that her power of attorney appeared invalid and the sale involved potential misrepresentation, she started hurling abuses at him. Pratima Thawait and the accompanying individuals resorted to obscene language and threatened to kill him. He further states that again on 7.03.2024, at around 6:20 PM, while he was under the Tifra flyover, two unidentified individuals approached him and stated that they were sent by one person named "Bengali Dada" and alerted him of dire consequences if he does not withdraw his objection before revenue office. This incident caused significant fear in the mind of Complainant and he is living under constant fear of being assaulted by goons of Pratima Thawait. Subsequently, FIR was lodged by respondent No. 4. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that registration of FIR is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, wherein a purely civil dispute has been given a criminal color to exert pressure on the Petitioners. He would submit that criminal law cannot be 6 invoked in a dispute that is essentially civil in nature, and where the necessary ingredients of the offence alleged are not made out. He further submits that the complainant has lodged the present FIR to pressurize her to surrender to his illegal demands of Rs. 4,56,000/- in exchange of return of property papers. He prays for quashing the FIR registered against the petitioners. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the argument made and submits that registration of FIR is just and proper as cognizable offence is made out. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 9. From perusal of the pleadings and documents, it is quite vivid that there is a family dispute between the parties regarding the sale of property. Thus, it is manifest that prima facie, the same is purely of civil nature. On close scrutiny of the pleadings and documents, it is crystal clear that the necessary ingredients of the alleged offence are not made out. In fact the FIR has been lodged only to pressurize the petitioner to fulfill the illegal demand of the complainant by which he is demanding Rs. 4,56,000/- in lieu of return of property papers. The complainant is trying to giving the criminal colour to a dispute which is purely of civil in nature. 10. At this juncture, we would like to emphasize on the need for a Magistrate to be cautious in examining whether the facts of the 7 case disclose a civil or a criminal wrong. Attempts at initiating vexatious criminal proceedings should be thwarted early on, as a summoning order, or even a direction to register an FIR, has grave consequences for setting the criminal proceedings in motion. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims which do not involve any criminal offence, by way of applying pressure through criminal prosecution, should be deprecated and discouraged. 11. The Supreme Court in ‘n’ number of decisions expressed grave concern in respect of allowing civil disputes to be wrongly converted into criminal proceedings. 12. In view of the foregoing, the FIR No.0200/2024 dated 8/3/2024 registered at PS Sirgitti, District Bilaspur; charge sheet dated 22/6/2024; and the criminal case No.3384/2024 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, against the petitioners are hereby quashed. 13. Accordingly, both the writ petitions (WPCR) are allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Amardeep/Shoaib