1 2025:CGHC:31944 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2149 of 2025 1 - Ramniwas Sahu S/o Mohan Lal Sahu, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Arasnara, Police Station Patan, Tehsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Accused). ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Patan, District Durg (C.G.) (Prosecution). 2 - Lavan Singh S/o Shivprasad Sahu, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Village Arasnara, Police Station Patan, Tehsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Complainants). 3 - Smt. Ajita Sahu W/o Lavan Singh, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Village Arasnara, Police Station Patan, Tehsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr.Punit Ruparel, Advocate. For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 10/07/ 2025 1. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the order SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.07.14 14:16:52 +0530 2 dated 15.04.2025 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patan, Durg (C.G.), in Revision Petition No. 01/2025. The said order affirmed the order dated 14.10.2024 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patan, District Durg (C.G.), whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 173(4) of the BNSS was rejected on the ground that the dispute between the parties appears to be civil in nature. 2. The facts of the case in brief is that the Respondent No. 2 owns agricultural land (Khasra No. 404/1, area 1.8500 hectares) in Village Arasnara, jointly with his brothers. Respondent No. 2 and his wife (Respondent No. 3) entered into a sale agreement with the petitioner on 22.05.2018, to sell the disputed land for Rs. 6,50,000/-. - The petitioner paid the entire consideration amount: Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash on 22.05.2018, and the balance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- through two cheques dated 23.7.2018, and 23.05.2019. - Despite the agreement, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 allegedly failed to execute the registered sale deed and instead threatened the petitioner with false criminal cases. The petitioner alleges that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed forgery and cheating by misrepresenting the status of the property and failing to fulfill their obligations under the sale agreement. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prima facie, the complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offense against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, as they have allegedly sold the aforementioned property to multiple persons, thereby 3 committing cheating and forgery. Specifically, it is alleged that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 executed a sale agreement dated 21.12.2021 (Annexure P-4), and subsequently registered the property on 23.05.2024, in favor of another person, Nandkumar Sahu, while receiving consideration for the agreement. Furthermore, the property was registered in favor of Mohan Brijlal Singh on 23.03.2023. These documents prima facie demonstrate that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed cheating and forgery against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order dated 14.10.2024 and15.04.2025 are liable to be set aside. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record including the impugned orders. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the order dated 14.10.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class which has been affirmed by Appellate Court vide judgment dated 15.04.2025, and taking into account that the dispute is civil in nature and the petitioner has admitted that the sale deed/agreement did not specify any time limit and he has not initiated any civil proceedings, therefore, this Court finds no ground to interfere in it. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.