1 2025:CGHC:29956 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2044 of 2025 1 - Ramavtar Verma S/o Late Bhukhan Verma Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Kewanchi, Thana Khandesara, District Bemetara. ... Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Khadsara, Thana Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kamala Rani Das W/o Shri Sukriti Ranjan Das Aged About 75 Years R/o Ward No. 17 Bemetara, Thana And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For the applicant : Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl. Advocate General (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 02/07/2025 1. The prayer made in this petition filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is to quash the complaint (Istgasa) dated 29.11.2023 and the order dated 04.01.2024 passed in Complain Case No.02/2023 whereby the Sub-Divisional Officer directed both the parties to present their claim regarding possession. A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.07.07 15:38:51 +0530 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner Ramavtar Verma and respondent no.2 Kamala Rani Das are claiming possession of lands bearing Kh.No.225, area 0.04, 1.120 hectares and Kh.No.02, area 1.160 hectares situated in village Kewanchi. It appears that in the year 2020, the said lands were purchased by respondent no.2 Kamala Rani Das from the maternal aunt of petitioner namely Kaushilya Verma. Thereafter, the purchaser respondent no.2 leased the said lands to one Mr. Mohan Verma for cultivation. It is alleged that on 26.11.2023 when respondent no.2 and Mohan Verma went to harvest the paddy crop, petitioner Ramavtar Verma had restrained them from cutting the crop claiming that the lands are his ancestral property and he is in possession of the said lands., on which, Respondent no.1 lodged complaint on 29.11.2023 in concerned police station, which ultimately led to filing of Istagasa No.02/2023 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bemetara. By order dated 04.01.2024 the SDM observed that a dispute had arisen between petitioner and respondent no.2. regarding possession of the property, due to which, there was breach of peace in the area and a preliminary order was passed under Section 145 Cr.P.C., directing that both the parties shall present their claim regarding possession. 3. According to the petitioner, the above ancestral land was jointly cultivated by the father of petitioner as well as his aunt Kaushalya verma, thereafter, she encroached upon the above ancestral land, against which, petitioner's father filed an appeal for partition before Tehsil Office, SDM, Bemetara and received 1/6th of share. After death of his father, petitioner filed a case before the SDM, Bemetara wherein the order was passed in favour of Kaushalya Verma, against which, he preferred appeal before the Revenue Board Raipur which is still pending and during the pendency of appeal, Kaushalya Verma sold the disputed land to respondent no.2. The petitioner also preferred appeal before this Court which is also pending. 4. The petitioner contends that the property in dispute was sold by Kaushilya Bai to respondent no.2 without the consent of the petitioner and the said sale is voidable. He submits that the complaint filed by respondent no.2 who is a third party is untenable and unsustainable in the eye of law and only 3 Smt. Kaushalya Verma being the original party may seek possession and not respondent no.2. Therefore, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is illegal, perverse and contrary to law. He submits that respondent no.2 has filed an application for demarcation of land of which the petitioner objected and his objection has been allowed and the Tahsildar Bemetara has terminated the proceedings of the case by order dated 24.02.2023. 5. It appears that no order of the Civil Court stands in favour of the petitioner. A petition u/s 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, seeking to set aside a preliminary order passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate (SDM) u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or to quash complaint (istgasa), may not be successful if the order is deemed necessary to prevent a breach of peace and maintain public order. Section 145 CrPC deals with disputes concerning land or water that are likely to cause a breach of the peace. The SDM's preliminary order under this section, directing parties to present their claims regarding possession, is a measure to address such disputes and maintain peace and tranquility in the area. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this petition warranting interference by this Court in the preliminary order passed by the SDM. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao