1 2025:CGHC:8313 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1215 of 2022 1 - Arun Keshari S/o Radheshyam Keshari Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Ramanujganj, Police Station - Ramanujganj , District- Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 2 - Sanjay Keshari S/o Radheshyam Keshari Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Ramanujganj, Police Station - Ramanujganj , District- Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 3 - Monti Keshari @ Ankit Keshari S/o Arun Keshari Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Ramanujganj, Police Station - Ramanujganj , District- Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 4 - Vicky Keshari @ Ashish Keshari S/o Arun Keshari Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Ramanujganj, Police Station - Ramanujganj , District- Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station , Ramanujganj, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 2 - Deepak Ekka As Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Ramanujganj, District - Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN 2 For Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate Hon'ble S hri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 18/02/2025 1. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioners under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR of crime No. 263 of 2022, registered at police station Ramanujganj, district Balrampur for the offence under sections 186, 332, 353, 34 of IPC. The petitioners have prayed the following relief in their petition: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quash impugned FIR No. 263/2022 registered at Police Station, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 186, 332, 34, 353 of Indian Penal Code, in the interest of justice accordingly.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are in possession of the land bearing plot No. 950/2, area 150 sq.ft. situated at Ramanujganj, district Balrampur-Ramanujganj, in which a shop is situated. The petitioners are in possession of the said land since so many decades. On 11.09.2019, the State Government has issued the instructions to the authorities to settle the government land in favour of 3 the persons, who are in possession over the same prior to the year 2017. In pursuant to the said instructions, the petitioners have filed an application before the concerned authority for grant of patta/ bhumiswami rights over the said land. Considering the application of the petitioners and the instructions issued by the State Government, a report was submitted by the Revenue Inspector (Nazul) before the Nazul officer, which was in favour of the petitioners. In the meantime, the petitioner No. 1 had filed a WPC No. 2039 of 2022 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 28.04.2022 with the direction to the Nazul officer to conclude the proceeding of the application of the petitioners for allotment of the land expeditiously preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of production of the copy of the order, in accordance with law. Pursuant to the order passed in WPC No. 2039 of 2022, the Nazul officer proceeded to decide the application of the petitioners. A public notice was issued and objections were called, but no objection were received till the fixed date. On 28.06.2022, the Nazul officer issued a memo to the respondent No. 2 and called his opinion/NOC for allotment of subject land in favour of the petitioners. The respondent No. 2 who was the then Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Ramanujganj had gone to the shop of the petitioners, which was situated over the subject land and started throwing the chairs, benches and other goods kept in the shop and started threatening the petitioners to implicate 4 them in the false criminal case. When the petitioners objected, they returned back. On the same day, the petitioner No. 1 has made a complaint to the police station Ramanujganj and the Collector, Balrampur against the illegal act of the respondent No. 2. When the respondent No. 2 came to know about the complaint made by the petitioner No. 1 against him to the police as well as Collector, Ramanujganj, he lodged an FIR at police station Ramanujganj, in which it is alleged that on the date of incident when the respondent No. 2 along with other Revenue Authorities including the Tahsildar, Ramanujganj had gone to the subject land for removal of the encroachment of the petitioners, they deterred the authorities from discharging of their public duty and due to that removal could not take place. On the report made by the respondent No. 2, the FIR has been registered against the petitioners, which is under challenge in the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the proceeding for allotment of patta over the subject land is pending before the Nazul officer, Ramanujganj and he has called the opinion/NOC for allotment of the subject land in favour of the petitioners and subsequently rejected the application of the petitioners vide order dated 18.07.2022. The said order of rejection of the application of the petitioners is under challenge in WPC No. 4129 of 2022 before this Court, which is pending for its consideration. On 21.07.2022, without any order of the competent authority, the respondent No. 2 along with the Tahsildar, Ramanujganj went to the shop of the petitioners and started throwing 5 the articles of the shop and threatened the petitioners to rope in any false case, which the petitioners have objected and when the petitioners made the complaint against the illegal act of the respondent No. 2, he lodged the FIR against the petitioners. He would further submit that the FIR has been lodged on 21.07.2022 at 19:05 Hrs, whereas the petitioners have made their complaint on the same day to the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur-Ramanujganj and Collector, Balrampur-Ramanujganj and obtained acknowledgment, which proved that within the office hours i.e. prior to lodging of the FIR, the petitioners have made complaint against the respondent No. 2 and the FIR is only a counterblast and nothing else to settle their score. The petitioners have not deterred the public servant from discharging their duties, but they defend themselves from the illegal act of the respondent No. 2 and his companions. The respondent No. 2 wanted to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land/shop, without there being any order in their favour. The FIR has been lodged with ulterior motive and it is a counterblast and therefore the same may be requested against the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as respondent No. 2 have vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have submitted that the allegation leveled in the FIR, requires proper investigation. The necessary ingredients of the offence alleged against the petitioners are there in the FIR and from the allegation, it cannot be said that no prima facie 6 offence appears in the contents of the FIR. Although the WPC No. 4129 of 2022 is pending before this Court for its consideration, but there is no interim order in his favour and therefore the FIR requires investigation and should have come to an logical end. Therefore, the petition does not have any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed in the writ petition by the respective parties. 6. From perusal of the documents annexed with the petition as well as reply, it reveals that on 11.09.2019, the State Government issued an instruction for allotment/settlement of the government land in favour of the persons, who are in possession of the land to certain extent. The petitioners are one of the claimants of the said land under the said circular dated 11.09.2019 and they moved their application for allotment of patta in their favour. In furtherance thereof, the Nazul Officer called the NOC from the respondent No. 2 to issue allotment order of patta in favour of the petitioners. However, it further reveals from the order dated 18.07.2022 annexed with the reply filed by respondent No. 2 that the application of the petitioners has been rejected. Immediately after 3 days of passing of the order on 21.07.2022, the respondent No. 2 along with the other Revenue Authorities had gone to the shop of the petitioners. 7. From perusal of the memo dated 19.07.2022, which is annexed with the reply filed by respondent No. 2 at page No. 17, it further appears that, pursuant to the order dated 08.09.2009, passed by the Tahsildar, Ramanujganj, in Revenue Case No. 33/A-68/2008-09, the Tahsildar 7 has issued the said memo and called the respondent No. 2 on 21.07.2022 to appear on the spot for removal of the encroachment of the petitioner No. 1. When the order of removal of encroachment was passed way back in the year 2009 and the application of the petitioners has been rejected just three days back from the date of incident, the petitioners should have been provided sufficient opportunity to explain why the proceeding of removal may not be initiated against them and in compliance of the order passed on 08.09.2009, the authorities cannot directly enter into premises or start removing the petitioners from the subject land/shop. Sufficient opportunity to challenge the order dated 18.07.2022 have also not been provided to the petitioners and it appears that the petitioners were in action to defend themselves from action taken by the respondent No. 2 and the authorities. 8. As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they are in possession over the subject property since so many decades and after dismissal of their application by the Nazul Officer vide the order dated 18.07.2022, they have challenged the said order in WPC No. 4129 of 2022, which is pending for consideration before this Court, we are of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground against the petitioners to proceed with the investigation of the said FIR lodged by the respondent No. 2 as the matter of grant of patta in favour of the petitioners is sub judice before this Court in WPC No. 4129 of 2022. It further appears that it is not a case where the petitioners have intentionally deterred the public servant from discharging their duty, 8 but the act of the petitioners, if any, appears to be in their own defence from dispossession from their shop. 9. We found much force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners to interfere with the FIR registered against them. Consequently, the present petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. The impugned FIR of crime No. 263 of 2022 registered at police station Ramanujganj on 21.07.2022 for the offence under sections 186, 332, 353 and 34 of IPC are hereby quashed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved