1 2025:CGHC:6339-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 62 of 2016 1. Shashi Bhushan Shukla And Ors. S/o Chakrapani Shukla Aged About 48 Years Director, Durga Continental Pvt. Ltd., Baloda Bazaar, R/o Baloda Bazaar, Police Station Baloda Bazaar, District Baloda Bazaar – Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 2. Sudhir Agrawal S/o Rajendra Lal Agrawal Aged About 43 Years Director, Durga Careers Pvt Ltd. Baloda Bazaar, R/o Baloda Bazaar, Police Station Baloda Bazaar, District Baloda Bazaar, Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 3. Sanjay Jaiswal S/o Lalji Jaiswal Aged About 46 Years R/o Vaishnav Colony, Baloda Bazaar Police Station And Tahsil Baloda Bazaar, District Baloda Bazaar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh , District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 4. Satyanarayan S/o Jhamuklal Prajapati Aged About 46 Years R/o Sattipara, Behind Post OfÏce Baloda Bazaar, Tahsil And Police Station Baloda Bazaar, District Baloda Bazaar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh , District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Baloda Bazaar, District Baloda Bazaar – Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 2. Dinesh Chandra Khare S/o Virendra Prasad Khare Aged About 53 Years R/o Heerapur Road Kabir Nagar, Raipur, Police Station, Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. S.R.M. Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foudation Of India, 54, Paras Bhawa, Narmada Road, Jabalpur M.P. Through The BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.02.05 17:09:12 +0530 2 General Power Of Attorney Holder Mr. A.K. Ratnakar, S/o Shri Bhim Rao, Aged About 44 Years, R/o H I G-1/456, New Borsi, Durg, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) CRMP No. 94 of 2016 1. R. P. Diwan S/o Late Ram Singh Diwan Aged About 61 Years The Then Nayab Tahsildar, Lavan, Police Station Lavan, District Baloda Bazaar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh 2. Ganesh Ram Ghritlahre Revenue Inspector S/o Goverdhan Ghritlahre Aged About 57 Years R/o Ghasidas Chowk, Village And Post Amera, Tahsil Baloda Bazaar, District Baloda Bazaar – Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 3. Mohanlal Sinha Patwari S/o Late Jagannath Prasad Sinha Aged About 40 Years R/o Purani Basti, Baloda Bazaar, Tahsil Baloda Bazaar, District Baloda Bazaar – Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Baloda Bazaar, District Baloda Bazaar – Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 2. Dinesh Chandra Khare S/o Virendra Prasad Khare Aged About 53 Years R/o Heerapur Road Kabir Nagar, Raipur, Police Station, Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Spiritual Regeneration Movement S R M Foundation Of India H - 244, Naraiana Vihar, New Delhi - 110 028, Through Its General Secretary Mr. G. Ram Chandra Mohan, District : New Delhi, Delhi ---Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. For Private Respondents : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. 3 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 04 .02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State and Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the private respondents in both the petitions. 2. The CRMP No. 62 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 10.11.2014 (Annexure P/10) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh, in an unregistered criminal complaint case parties being Dinesh Chandra Khare vs. G. Ramchandra Mohan & Others, as also the subsequent and consequential actions taken by the respondent No. 1, including lodging of FIR, in the interest of justice.” 3. The CRMP No. 94 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 10.11.2014 (Annexure P/4) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 4 Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh, in an unregistered criminal complaint case parties being Dinesh Chandra Khare vs. G. Ramchandra Mohan & Others, as also the subsequent and consequential actions taken by the respondent No. 1, including lodging of FIR, in the interest of justice.” 4. In CRMP No. 62 of 2016, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No. 3/Spiritual Regeneration Movement (SRM) Foundation of India is a registered Society that owns various lands at different places in Chhattisgarh, including one at Pangaon village. In the year 2013, respondent No. 3 approached petitioners No. 1 and 2 to sell a plot ad-measuring 5 acres, situated at Pangaon village, Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara. One Mr. A. K. Ratnakar represented himself as the power of attorney holder to manage the affairs of the said Society. Thereafter, the petitioners No. 1 and 2 purchased plots from respondent No. 3 through registered sale deeds dated 20.09.2013. Petitioner No. 1 bought a plot ad-measuring 0.62 acres for a consideration of Rs. 6.50 lakhs, while petitioner No. 2 purchased a plot admeasuring 4.38 acres for consideration of Rs. 10 lakhs. 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners No. 3 and 4 are attesting witnesses to the sale deeds. Thereafter, the respondents No. 2 raised a dispute during the mutation of the property and filed a civil suit on 09.04.2014, challenging the sale deeds dated 20.09.2013, claiming to be the power of attorney holder of respondent No. 3/Society. A complaint was made by respondent No. 2 before the concerned Police Station on 20.03.2014. The respondent No.2 5 filed a civil suit before the High Court of Delhi bearing Civil Suit No. SC (OS) 3221/2011 and Civil Court at Balodabazar, where respondents No.2 and 3 claimed themselves to be the real owners. He also submits that the learned Civil Court granted interim relief and during the currency of the interim orders, plots were sold to innocent purchasers, including the petitioners. A contempt petition was filed in which petitioners No. 1 and 2 were impleaded as respondents. Respondent No. 2 subsequently filed a complaint case against the petitioners under Sections 200 and 202 read with Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., alleging therein commission of offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 167, 212, and 217 read with Section 120B of the IPC. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 10.11.2014 issued a direction to the concerned Police Station to register an FIR and submit a final report. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the document annexed hereinabove would clearly demonstrate that the petitioners duly undertook each and every precaution before purchasing the property in question. The petitioners duly got conducted a search and thereafter, even duly called for objections in the newspaper, but the respondent No.2 did not object at all at that point of time. He also states that the power of attorney and other authoritative documents produced by the said Mr. A.K. Ratnakar were all registered and authenticated documents and the petitioners had no reason to disbelieve the same. 7. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that almost similar disputes are already pending before the competent Civil Court in Balodabazar as well the Hon’ble High Court at Delhi and even the sale proceeds have been duly deposited i.e. Rs. 16.5 lakhs before the 6 High Court of Delhi by way of abundant precaution. Further, the payment of Rs. 16.5 lakhs also stands admitted in the additional rely filed by the respondent No. 2 in CRMP No. 62 of 2016 that said amount is still lying before the Hon’ble Court at Delhi and therefore, it is clear that there now remains no grievance or element of criminality in the matter. He would submit that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers for value and they have absolutely nothing to do with the inter se dispute between the two different sects of the respondent No. 3/Society. In fact, the petitioners have been fallen prey of the entire situation as they have already paid a huge sum of money and are yet litigating and facing all sorts of harassment on account of their bona fide purchase. Hence, the FIR bearing No. 486 of 2014 is liable to be quashed. 8. In CRMP No. 94 of 2016, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 1 was Nayab Tahsildar, petitioner No. 2 was Revenue Inspector, and petitioner No. 3 was Patwari at the relevant time. They purchased a plot from respondent No. 3, but later on, respondent No. 2, who claimed to be the power of attorney holder of respondent No. 3/Society, raised objections and filed a civil suit which is pending before the District Judge, Baloda Bazar and another Civil Suit bearing No. CS(OS) 3221/2011 is pending before the High Court of Delhi, where a stay order was passed. On 30.10.2014, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint case under Sections 200 and 202 read with 156(3) of the CrPC against the petitioners alleging therein commission of offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 167, 212, and 217 read with Section 120B of the IPC. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baloda Bazar, on 11.10.2014 issued a direction to the concerned Police 7 Station to register an FIR and submit the final report. Against the orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balodabazar, criminal revision was preferred before the learned Sessions Court and the same was dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that respondent No. 3 filed an application for issuance of duplicate rin pustika somewhere in the year 2013. The petitioners duly undertook the exercise of issuing this duplicate rin pustika and the allegation them is that this rin pustika has been issued illegally and on the basis of which the respondent No. 3 has further sold the property in question. The entire case is issuing this duplicate rin pustika is being annexed as Annexure P/1 (in CRMP No. 94 of 2016) and a bare perusal of which would reveal that each and every formality/procedure was duly followed by the petitioners before issuance of the said duplicate rin pustika and the petitioners cannot be found fault with, in any manner, in issuance of this duplicate rin pustika. He also submits that after obtaining this duplicate rin pustika, the respondent No.3 further sold out the land in question to petitioners No. 1 & 2 in CRMP No. 62 of 2016, who also undertook all necessary precautions before purchasing of the said land. He would submit that the petitioners, acting in their respective ofÏcial capacities have statutory protection in their favour, and therefore, no criminal action, as taken in the instant matter, could have been taken against the petitioners. There is absolutely no criminality in the matter and the entire prosecution is purely of a civil nature and the dispute also is entirely within the domain of the civil Courts. Hence, this petition. 10. On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel, 8 appearing for private respondent oppose the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions. 11. Learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2 submits that the complainant/respondent No. 2 had filed the complaint case before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Baloda Bazar, Dist-Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) with the allegation that the co-accused G. Ramchandra Mohan, A. K. Ratnakar and present petitioners under Sections 200, 202 r/w Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. stating that the respondent No.1 and 2 have personated themselves as a member of the S.R.M. Foundation and they have with the help of the Revenue OfÏcers executed the registered sale deed dated 20.09.2013 in favour of the petitioners, that the agricultural land bearing Kh. No. 16/2 क, 18/2 ख, 19/ग, 20/3 and 21/1 ग total area 2.023 Hec (around five acre) without any legal authority, that the co-accused G. Ramchandra Mohan, A. K. Ratnakar and present petitioners have fabricated the document and used the same, that their conduct is illegal, and therefore, the offence is liable to be registered against them. He also submits that the complaint case filed by the complainant was allowed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Baloda Bazar, Dist-Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara vide order dated 10.11.2014 and against the order dated 10.11.2014, the criminal revision was filed before the learned Session Judge Baloda Bazar, Dist-Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 26.11.2014 and subsequently, the Crime No. 486/2014 was registered against the present petitioners and other co-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 167, 212, 217 & 120B of IPC and after investigation the charge-sheet has filed against the co- 9 accused G. Ramchandra Mohan on 17.03.2019, thereafter, the co- accused G. Ramchandra Mohan had filed bail application before this Court and the same was allowed on 29.03.2019 in MCRC No. 1178/2019 and the charges have also been framed by the learned trial Court. 12. 12. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that the property belongs to the S.R.M. Foundation, but the co-accused G. Ramchandra Mohan and others personated themselves as ofÏce bearer of the society, therefore, the civil suit was filed by the society in its registered ofÏce at New Delhi in the year 2011 and the injunction order was passed on 13.01.2012, the co-accused G. Ramchandra Mohan was defendant No. 5 in the civil suit and he has knowledge about the injunction order even thereafter, he has sold the land in favour of the petitioners No.1 and 2 (in CRMP No. 62 of 2016) vide sale deed dated 20.09.2013 valued Rs. 6,50,000/- and Rs. 10,00,000/-, that as per sale deed Rs. 6,50,000/- was paid in cash and Rs. 10,00,000/- was received by G. Ramchandra Mohan. He also contented that one contempt petition was filed by the society against the G. Ramchandra Mohan and others where the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 11.02.2015 directed the co-accused G. Ramchandra Mohan to deposit the sale consideration amount, therefore, he has deposited the amount Rs.16,50,000/- before the Registry of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and subsequently, he filed an application under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for withdrawal such amount, but the application has been rejected vide order dated 09.06.2022. 13. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 states that earlier the CRMP Nos. 94/2016 and 62/2016 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 10 09.08.2023 and the order of registration of FIR No. 486 of 2014 has been set aside. The co-accused G. Ramchandra Mohan has filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class for quashing of criminal proceeding/FIR on the basis of quashing of criminal proceeding against the co-accused in CRMP No. 94/2016, the learned Judicial Magistrate allowed the application and quashed the criminal proceeding registered against the co-accused G. Ramchandra Mohan vide order dated 12.12.2023 against which the Criminal Misc. Petition No.1302/2024 has been filed and notice was issued to the respondent on 13.06.2024. 14. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 further contended that the petitioners have sought the relief of order dated 10.11.2014 earlier they have challenged the same before the Revisional Court which was dismissed vide order dated 26.11.2014, but the same has not been challenged before any competent Court of law, therefore, the order dated 10.11.2014 has attained the finality and the present petitions against the order dated 10.11.2014 are not maintainable. He also contended that the FIR No. 486 of 2014 has been registered against the petitioners, but the same has also not been challenged before this Court, therefore, also the petitions are liable to be dismissed. The co-accused G. Ramchandra Mohan has also executed the sale deed of the land of the society situated at Vill-Devri, Tah. Takhatpur, Dist-Bilaspur (C.G.) vide registered sale deed dated 30.05.2011 without any authority, therefore, the complaint was made against G. Ramchandra Mohan and purchased the property and crime No. 328/2011 was registered against them for the offence punishable U/s 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 167, 212, 217 & 120B of 11 IPC and after investigation the charge-sheet was filed on 22.10.2018. Thereafter, the co-accused G. Ramchandra Mohan was arrested and he filed an application U/s 439 of the Cr.P.C. before this Court for his release on bail which was allowed by this Court on 29.01.2019 in MCRC No.7232/2018. The co-accused had filed CRMP No. 759/2019 before this Court for quashing of order of registration of FIR passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Takhatpur and FIR No. 328/2011 dated 06.12.2011 registered at P.S. Takhatpur, Dist. Bilaspur, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28.08.2024 passed in CRMP No. 759/2019. The petitioners herein are also in same footing, therefore, the petitions filed by them with the similar prayer is also liable to be dismissed. 15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in the petition along with the annexures annexed in this petition. 16. From perusal of the documents and additional reply filed by the respondent No. 2, it is evident that the action taken by one sect of the Foundation against the other sect of the Foundation. There is absolutely no document or averment which may demonstrate that the petitioners herein are not the bonafide purchasers of the property in question. In the additional reply, respondent No. 2, clearly admits that the co-accused G. Ramchandra Mohan and A.K. Ratnakar are the persons who impersonated themselves as the members of the Foundation. Further, the payment of Rs. 16.5 lakhs also stands admitted in the additional reply, it is also admitted that this amount is still lying in the Hon’ble Court at Delhi, and therefore, it is clear that now no grievance or element of criminality 12 remains in the matter. However, the civil suits regarding the land dispute are also pending before the Civil Court at Baloda Bazar and in the High Court of Delhi, which indicates that complainants have given a criminal hue to a civil dispute. 17. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balodabazar, dated 10.11.2014 is liable to be and is hereby set aside and subsequent FIR No. 486 of 2014 registered against the petitioners in both the petitions are hereby quashed. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan