1 2025:CGHC:33934-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2239 of 2025 Haridas Dahariya S/o Rajaram Dahariya, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Jarvay, P.S. Old Bhilai, District Durg C.G. At Presently R/o Umarpoti, P.S. Utai District Durg C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Old Bhilai District Durg C.G. 2 - Ahasmat Aalam S/o Nasrat Aalam Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 18, Uttar ( North ) Vasundhara Nagar, Umda Road, Bhilai -3, Tahsil Patan, District Durg C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Rathod, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 18.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Rathod, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, learned Government Advocate for MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.07.18 18:48:53 +0530 2 the respondent No.1 / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and set aside the Chargesheet bearing no. 58/2024 dated 01-03- 2024 under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code filed by the Station House Officer, Police Station -Old Bhilai, District-Durg (C.G) before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhilai-3, District-Durg (C.G), arising out of F.I.R dated 05- 12-23 bearing no. 0475/2023 and also the framing of charge under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner vide order dated 12- 05-2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-Bhilai-3, District-Durg (C.G) passed in Criminal Case no. 692/2024 and the consequential criminal proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class- Bhilai-3, District-Durg (C.G) in Criminal Case no. 692/202 against the petitioner which is apparently bad in law, as such liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice.” 3. Prosecution story in a nutshell is that the petitioner and respondent No.2 has entered into sale agreement dated 03.04.2021 for sale of petitioner’s subject land for a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- and against which the respondent No.2 has paid Rs.2,00,000/- as advance amount to the petitioner. However, inspite of lapse of more than 1 year and inspite of numerous request when the respondent No. 2 has failed to pay the balance 3 amount to the petitioner and perform his part of agreement clearly reveals that the respondent No. 2 is not ready and willing to perform his part of contract, thus vide legal notice dated 03.06.2022 and paper publication dated 15.06.2022, petitioner has cancelled the aforesaid sale agreement. Inspite of receiving of the said notice and paper publication the respondent No.2 has neither filed reply nor has raised any objection but as an afterthought and just to harass the petitioner and deprive him of his fundamental right, respondent No.2 has lodged instant FIR belatedly on 05.12.2023 against the petitioner before the police station situated at Old Bhilai, District Durg (C.G) bearing no. 0475/2023 alleging bald and baseless allegation. 4. Thereafter, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case the police authorities have filled charge-sheet bearing No. 58/2024 dated 01.03.2024 against the petitioner under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhilai 3, District-Durg (C.G) and thereafter while the petitioner was facing criminal trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhilai 3, District-Durg (C.G) has framed charges against the petitioner under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code vide its order dated 12.05.2025 passed in Criminal Case No. 692/2024 is arbitrary, illegal and non-est in the eyes of law. Thus, the petitioner has preferred this petition for instant petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the registration of 4 the FIR and filling of charge-sheet filed by the police of Police Station Bhilai-3, District-Durg (C.G.) against the petitioner under section 420 of IPC is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no evidence against the petitioner connecting with the crime in question. Further, a perusal of the entire facts of the case and record clearly reveals that the instant case is purely a civil dispute and has been given a criminal colour just to harass and pressurize the petitioner. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the well settled law of the land that a dispute which is of civil nature can be given a criminal colour as an arm twisting method which leads to infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and has failed to appreciate that there is enormous and unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report against the petitioner. Further, the irrational and irresponsible conduct of the respondent no.2 who inspite of entering into sale agreement with the petitioner has failed to abide by it, inspite of numerous request of the petitioner and thus same clearly reveals that the respondent no.2 is never ready and willing to perform his part which is causing immense hardship and pain to petitioner and it is after the petitioner has cancelled the said sale agreement the respondent No.2 has as an afterthought just to harass the petitioner has initiated criminal proceedings belatedly against the petitioner which is sheer abuse of process of law and thus non-est, arbitrary and illegal in the eyes of law. 5 6. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet and submits that in the present matter, since the charge-sheet has already been filed, charges have already been framed, as such, this petition has virtually become infructuous and the same may be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 8. On perusal of the documents appended with the petition, it transpires that the agreement of sale which has been relied upon by the petitioner that there was an agreement for sale of the land in question to the tune of Rs.62,00,000/- with the complainant and he has taken Rs.51,000/- as advanced and subsequently Rs.2,00,000/- has been taken through RTGS, but the agreement which has been relied upon is consists of only one page and is incomplete. 9. On a pointed query being made to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why he has annexed incomplete sale agreement, the counsel for the petitioner submits that it is only the one page agreement which is part of the charge-sheet. On a further query being made to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner is in possession of the said agreement executed between the petitioner and respondent No.2, he stated that he does not have the same. 10. Considering the above, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the present matter as the charges have already 6 been framed against the petitioner and there appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the same. 11. In view of the same, we do not find any merit in this petition. The petition lacks merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet