1 2025:CGHC:37862-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1309 of 2022 Kuldev Gupta S/o Late Saryu Prasad Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Mahuli P.S And Tahsil - Wadrafnagar Distt. - Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Balrampur District - Balrampur – Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 2. Parmeshwar Singh S/o Late Ronha Aged About 61 Years R/o Village - Semali P.S. And Tahsil - Balrampur District - Balrampur – Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 01.08.2025 1. Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, learned counsel, submits that he has filed his power on behalf of respondent No. 2 today itself, which is taken on record. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.08.04 10:40:38 +0530 2 2. Heard Mr. A.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 1/State and Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly to allow this petition and quashed the FIR in respect of Crime No. 23 of 2022 registered at Police Station Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) and consequently the entire charge-sheet/entire criminal proceeding pending before the JMFC, Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 154 of 2022 may kindly be quashed, in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.01.2022, the complainant, Parmeshwar, lodged a written complaint at the concerned Police Station alleging that on 28.01.2022, at around 8:00 a.m., while he was milking near his house, the accused, Hirdayanand @ Bablu Gupta, arrived at the complainant's house on a motorcycle and abducted him. He was then taken to the house of one Banarsi in Village Adhoura, where he was allegedly forced to consume liquor. While in an intoxicated and senseless condition, the accused persons transported him to Ambikapur in a Scorpio vehicle, where they allegedly forced him to sign certain registry papers and executed a sale deed of the complainant's land in the name of the present petitioner and other co-accused persons. 5. Based on this written complaint, the police registered a case against 3 the present petitioner and the co-accused for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 365, 368, 420, 294, 506, 467, 468, 471, 120B, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the learned Trial Court against the petitioner and the other accused. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 28.01.2022, the complainant executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner at the Registry Office, Ambikapur, after receiving the entire sale consideration. Therefore, prima facie, no offence is made out against the petitioner. He further submits that although the sale deed was executed by the complainant in favour of the petitioner and other co-accused on 30.01.2022, the complainant lodged the FIR only two days later, under the influence of certain other individuals. As per the contents of the written complaint, it appears that the complainant did not draft the complaint himself. Instead, under the influence of persons who wanted the complainant’s land to be sold to them, a false story was concocted and a fabricated complaint was lodged. 7. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that, according to the version in the complaint, it is highly improbable that after abducting the complainant, the petitioner could have forcibly executed the sale deed in the Registry Office at Ambikapur. Hence, the entire prosecution case appears unreliable. He also contends that it is not a case where the purchaser failed to pay the sale consideration. The complainant received the full consideration amount and then executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. If the complainant had not received the consideration amount, he could have approached the competent Civil 4 Court to seek cancellation of the sale deed. Therefore, the institution of criminal proceedings in this matter is not maintainable. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the complainant himself prepared the necessary documents and executed several affidavits in support thereof, at least five days prior to the date of execution of the sale deed. He visited Ambikapur multiple times for the preparation of registry papers and revenue records. However, after the execution of the sale deed, the complainant concocted a false story and lodged a baseless report against the petitioner. It is further submitted that, as per the Section 161 of the CrPC statement recorded by the police from the Registrar of the Registry Office, Ambikapur, the Registrar has categorically stated that the complainant executed the sale deed in his presence and affixed his thumb impression voluntarily. Upon being asked about receipt of consideration, the complainant clearly stated before the Registrar that he had received the entire amount and did not raise any objection or allege coercion at that time. Therefore, the version of the complainant in the FIR and his statement under Section 161 of the CrPC is not reliable. 9. Learned counsel further argues that the dispute pertains to cancellation of a sale deed, which is purely of a civil nature. In fact, the complainant has already filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge Class-II, Balrampur in Civil Suit No. 06A of 2022. Accordingly, the parallel initiation of criminal proceedings on the same subject matter is not legally sustainable. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.N. Vijayalakshmi & Others vs. State of Karnataka & Another, SLP (Criminal) No. 8626 of 2024, 5 dated 31.07.2025, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paragraphs 42 to 47 that: “42. Coming to the second question i.e., whether civil and criminal proceedings both can be maintained on the very same set of allegations qua the same person(s), the answer stricto sensu, is that there is no bar to simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings. If the element of criminality is there, a civil case can co- exist with a criminal case on the same facts. The fact that a civil remedy has already been availed of by a complainant, ipso facto, is not sufficient ground to quash an FIR, as pointed out, inter alia, in P Swaroopa Rani v M Hari Narayana, (2008) 5 SCC 765 and Syed Aksari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v State (Delhi Admn.), (2009) 5 SCC 528. The obvious caveat being that the allegations, even if having a civil flavour to them, must prima facie disclose an overwhelming element of criminality. In the absence of the element of criminality, if both civil and criminal cases are allowed to continue, it will definitely amount to abuse of the process of the Court, which the Courts have always tried to prevent by putting a stop to any such criminal proceeding, where civil proceedings have already been instituted with regard to the same issue, and the element of criminality is absent. If such element is absent, the prosecution in question would have to be quashed. In this connection, Paramjeet Batra v State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673 can be referred to: ‘12. ……. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High 6 Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.’ (emphasis supplied) 43. In Usha Chakraborty v State of West Bengal, (2023) 15 SCC 135, while quashing the FIR therein and further proceedings based thereon, it was observed 'the factual position thus would reveal that the genesis as also the purpose of criminal proceedings are nothing but the aforesaid incident and further that the dispute involved is essentially of civil nature.' 44. A further contention urged by the appellants is that the procedure laid down in Priyanka Srivastava v State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 has not been followed by the complainant before filing the PCR. As per the guidelines prescribed in Priyanka Srivastava (supra), any person aggrieved by non- registration of an FIR by the police is required to approach the concerned Superintendent of Police and on his failure to take action, can move before the Magistrate concerned under Section 200 of the CrPC by filing a private complaint. In this case, the complainant approached the police on 12.05.2022 which refused to register an FIR. Thereafter, the complainant approached the ACMM by filing the PCR on 20.07.2022, and while such private complaint was pending on the file of the ACMM, the complainant approached the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City. On nothing being done even then, 7 faced with such inaction, the complainant finally filed the requisite affidavit before the ACMM. Subsequently on 21.07.2023, the ACMM referred the PCR to the police, culminating into the underlying FIR. 45. The High Court has taken a view that this is a curable defect since before the referral order on the PCR by the ACMM for registering an FIR under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, the required formalities were done. In our considered opinion, this approach cannot be labelled erroneous. The requirement under Priyanka Srivastava (supra) is to safeguard the rights of the citizenry and to put a stop to unjust criminal action and filing of vexatious applications to settle personal scores. Thus, such requirement could not be said to be a mere formality. One of us (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) as a Single Judge of the Uttarakhand High Court, in Sachin Chamoli v State of Uttarakhand, 2016 (3) NCC 68, where no affidavit had been filed, held that filing of affidavit was a mandatory requirement as per Priyanka Srivastava (supra). In Babu Venkatesh v State of Karnataka, (2022) 5 SCC 639, this Court held that the Magistrate concerned should not have entertained the complaint/application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC therein, as it was not supported by an affidavit. In the case at hand, before the ACMM passed the referral order, the complaint was backed by an affidavit. In Ramesh Kumar Bung v State of Telangana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 264, the Court, while stating that the directions in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) are mandatory, declined to interfere with the order(s) impugned therein, but noted that the informant had filed the affidavit belatedly. To complete the discussion on this aspect of the law, we may also refer to our judgment in Kanishk Sinha v State of West Bengal, 8 2025 SCC OnLine SC 443 where, speaking through Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., this Court upheld an order of the Calcutta High Court, to the effect that the direction in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) to file the affidavit, was prospective in nature. Therefore, if after the filing of the complaint/application but before any order thereon is passed, such requirement is allowed to be fulfilled/complied with by the complainant, it would not, in our view, run counter to the law exposited in Priyanka Srivastava (supra). We sum up our conclusions on this score as follows: (i) Directions issued in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) are mandatory; (ii) Guidelines laid down in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) operate prospectively; (iii) Non-filing of the supporting affidavit is a curable defect, but must be cured before the Magistrate passes any substantive order on the complaint/application, and; (iv) If the Magistrate proceeds without the requisite affidavit, such order/any consequential orders/proceedings can be quashed on the sole ground of non-compliance with Priyanka Srivastava (supra). 46. In the above view, the Impugned Judgment does not militate against the law laid down in Priyanka Srivastava (supra). That said, and as reasoned above, our interference with the Impugned Judgment is necessitated as the ingredients of offences apropos which cognizance was taken by the ACMM are not made out. The dicta in State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Vesa Holdings Private Limited v State of Kerala, (2015) 8 SCC 293, and; Gulam Mustafa v State of Karnataka, (2023) 18 SCC 265 also impel this Court to intervene. 47. Accordingly, for the reasons aforesaid, FIR Crime No.260/2023 along with all consequential orders 9 including the Chargesheet dated 28.08.2024 and the cognizance order dated 30.08.2024 stand quashed qua the appellants.” 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.N. Vijayalakshmi (supra), the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 2/complainant is purely civil in nature. The lodging of the present FIR by respondent No. 2 is an attempt to give a civil dispute the colour of a criminal offence, which is impermissible in law. Hence, this petition. 11. On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2 oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition. 13. The legal framework regarding the quashing of criminal proceedings has been well-established through various judicial pronouncements. The inherent powers conferred upon the High Courts under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), as well as the extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are to be invoked with utmost caution and only in rare and exceptional cases. Courts have consistently held that these powers are not to be used to stifle legitimate prosecution or interfere unnecessarily in matters that are at the stage of investigation, especially in relation to cognizable offences which are deemed serious and warrant police intervention. However, an exception to this general rule arises in cases where, upon a plain reading of the 10 contents of the FIR or complaint, even if all the allegations are accepted at face value, they do not disclose any offence or fail to make out a prima facie case against the accused. In such circumstances, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would result in a miscarriage of justice, and hence, the Court is justified in exercising its powers to quash the FIR, complaint, or charge-sheet to prevent abuse of the legal process. 14. In the present case, a careful examination of the FIR, charge-sheet and the circumstances surrounding the dispute reveals that the matter between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 (the complainant) is essentially civil in nature. It appears that the complainant has sought to give a criminal colour to what is, at its core, a civil dispute, possibly with the intent to exert pressure on the petitioner or to gain an undue advantage. Significantly, respondent No. 2 has already instituted civil suit bearing Civil Suit No. 06A of 2022 before the learned Civil Judge Class-II, Balrampur, against the petitioner, which clearly indicates that he has availed the appropriate civil remedy. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in S.N. Vijayalakshmi (supra), has categorically held that where the allegations do not disclose any element of criminality and the dispute is civil in substance, the criminal justice system ought not to be invoked as a tool for harassment or to settle personal scores. 15. In light of this settled position, the registration of the FIR and the continuation of the criminal proceedings in the present case constitute a clear abuse of the process of law. Permitting such proceedings to continue would not only undermine the sanctity of the criminal justice system, but would also infringe upon the petitioner’s fundamental rights, particularly the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 11 21 of the Constitution of India. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion and the judicial principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.N. Vijayalakshmi (supra), this Court is of the firm and considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, the charge-sheet bearing No. 68 of 2022 dated 01.05.2022, which has arisen from FIR bearing Crime No. 23 of 2022 dated 01.02.2022 registered at Police Station Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh), along with all consequential proceedings, including the criminal trial pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) in Criminal Case No. 154 of 2022, are hereby quashed in the interest of justice. 17. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan