1 2025:CGHC:14160 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 725 of 2014 Brijmohan Dua (Since Deceased) through Smt. Krishna Dua D/o Late Sitaram Dua, Wd/o Late Govind Mahendarm, Aged About 68 Years, R/o In front Of Bukhari Petrol Pump, Link Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Applicant versus 1 – Smt. Punam Dwivedi W/o Awadhesh Kumar Dwivedi Aged About 38 Years R/o Vinoba Nagar, Sahgal Gali, Near Shiv Mandir, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur C.G., P.S. Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Manish Pandey S/o Late Mathura Prasad Pandey Aged About 32 Years R/o Main Road, Torwa, Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilasppur, C.G., Police Station Torwa, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Manish Bajaj S/o Chetan Bajaj Aged About 21 Years R/o Torwa Naka, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, C.G., Police Station Torwa, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. R. Bose Shrivastava W/o Ashish Shrivastava Aged About 37 Years, Deputy Registrar, Bilaspur C.G., OfÏce of Deputy Registrar, Composite Building, Bilaspur Tehsil and Disttrict Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chhatlal Kashyap S/o Late Lakhan Lal Kashyap Aged About 50 Years Then Halka Patwari, Patwari Halka No. 22 (New 28) Mauja Torwa, R.I.C. Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Dhirendra Singh S/o Vishnu Singh Aged About 46 Years, Then Halka Patwari, Patwari Halka No. 22 (New 28) Mauja Torwa, R.I.C. Tehsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur, C.G. ---- Respondents Along with CRR No. 726 of 2014 Brijmohan Dua (Since Deceased) through Smt. Krishna Dua D/o Late Sitaram Dua, Wd/o Late Govind Mahendarm, Aged About 68 Years, R/o RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 In front Of Bukhari Petrol Pump, Link Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Applicant Versus 1 – Smt. Punam Dwivedi W/o Awadhesh Kumar Dwivedi Aged About 38 Years R/o Vinoba Nagar, Sahgal Gali, Near Shiv Mandir, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur C.G., P.S. Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Manish Pandey S/o Late Mathura Prasad Pandey Aged About 32 Years R/o Main Road, Torwa, Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilasppur, C.G., Police Station Torwa, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Manish Bajaj S/o Chetan Bajaj Aged About 21 Years R/o Torwa Naka, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, C.G., Police Station Torwa, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. R. Bose Shrivastava W/o Ashish Shrivastava Aged About 37 Years, Deputy Registrar, Bilaspur C.G., OfÏce of Deputy Registrar, Composite Building, Bilaspur Tehsil and Disttrict Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chhatlal Kashyap S/o Late Lakhan Lal Kashyap Aged About 50 Years Then Halka Patwari, Patwari Halka No. 22 (New 28) Mauja Torwa, R.I.C. Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Dhirendra Singh S/o Vishnu Singh Aged About 46 Years, Then Halka Patwari, Patwari Halka No. 22 (New 28) Mauja Torwa, R.I.C. Tehsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur, C.G. ---- Respondents Along with CRR No. 727 of 2014 Brijmohan Dua (Since Deceased) through Smt. Krishna Dua D/o Late Sitaram Dua, Wd/o Late Govind Mahendarm, Aged About 68 Years, R/o In front Of Bukhari Petrol Pump, Link Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Applicant Versus 1 – Smt. Punam Dwivedi W/o Awadhesh Kumar Dwivedi Aged About 38 Years R/o Vinoba Nagar, Sahgal Gali, Near Shiv Mandir, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur C.G., P.S. Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Manish Pandey S/o Late Mathura Prasad Pandey Aged About 32 Years R/o Main Road, Torwa, Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilasppur, C.G., Police Station Torwa, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 3 - Manish Bajaj S/o Chetan Bajaj Aged About 21 Years R/o Torwa Naka, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, C.G., Police Station Torwa, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. R. Bose Shrivastava W/o Ashish Shrivastava Aged About 37 Years, Deputy Registrar, Bilaspur C.G., OfÏce of Deputy Registrar, Composite Building, Bilaspur Tehsil and Disttrict Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chhatlal Kashyap S/o Late Lakhan Lal Kashyap Aged About 50 Years Then Halka Patwari, Patwari Halka No. 22 (New 28) Mauja Torwa, R.I.C. Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Dhirendra Singh S/o Vishnu Singh Aged About 46 Years, Then Halka Patwari, Patwari Halka No. 22 (New 28) Mauja Torwa, R.I.C. Tehsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur, C.G. ---- Non-applicants For Applicant : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Private Respondents : Mr. S.S. Bhaduri, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Chhatlal Kashyap, Advocate. For Respondent No.7/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.03.2025 1. Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Bharat Gulbani, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent No.7/State, as well as Mr. S.S. Bhaduri, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Chhatlal Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents. 2. These criminal revisions are preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2011 passed in Criminal Revision Nos. 152/11, 158/11 and 151/11 by the learned Sessions Judge, District – Bilaspur (C.G.), arising out of the judgment and order dated 27.06.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, District – 4 Bilaspur (C.G.) in the application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC filed by the applicant, whereby the learned revisional Court has allowed the revisions filed by the private respondents No. 2, 5 and 6 and set aside the order of the learned trial Court. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant has filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. against the respondents No.1 to 6 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Bilaspur (C.G.) stating that the land bearing Khasra No. 964/1 area 0.46 acre and Khasra No.964/2 area 0.50 acre situated in Mauja Torwa Patwari Halka No.22 (new 28) is in ownership and possession of the applicant and is recorded in all revenue records in the name of his father late Sitaram Dua, son of late Choudhari Ram Dua and to this effect Rin Pustika No.50274 has also been issued in favour of his father late Sitaram Dua by the competent authority. On 04.03.2009 some other persons showing himself as Sitaram with connivance of respondent/accused No.1 Smt. Punam Dwivedi illegally sold the land in question to respondent/accused No.1 and executed registered sale-deed in her favour. The respondent/accused No. 6 Dhirendra Singh issued duplicate Rin Pustika No. 128908 in the forge name of Sitaram Dua however the original Rin Pustika is/was available in the name of Sitaram Dua with this applicant. The respondent/accused No. 5 Chhatlal Kashyap using the aforesaid forged and fabricated Rin Pustika issued 22 points document in favour of socalled forged Sitaram Dua. The respondent/accused No. 4 Smt. R. Bose Shrivastava, Deputy Registrar, Bilaspur (C.G.) and respondent/accused No. 2 5 Manish Pandey and respondent/accused No. 3 Manish Bajaj including the so-called person who had himself showed as Sitaram Dua son of late Choudhari, Ram and got prepared the forged 22 point document on 18.11.2008 and thereafter afÏxed photo of other persons showing himself as Sitaram Dua in the said 22 points document and got prepared registered sale-deed. In the aforesaid registered sale-deed the respondent No.2/accused Manish Pandey and respondent No.3/accused Manish Bajaj have wrongly given their identification in favour of so-called forged Sitaram Dua. On the contrary from bare perusal of both the photos afÏxed in the documents both photos showed of different persons. The photo of applicant's father (Sitaram Dua) is totally different to the photo of sale-deed and the photo afÏxed in the alleged 22 points document. The applicant had submitted Income Tax Form No. 49-A for identification in which photo of applicant’s father is afÏxed while the same has not been submitted/afÏxed by the aforesaid persons before respondent No.1/accused Smt. Punam Dwivedi. For registration of offence under Sections 419, 420, 465, 476, 471, 468 and 120(B) of the IPC against the accused persons/respondents No.1 to 6, the applicant submitted an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Bilaspur (C.G.) for a direction to the concerned Police Station and submitted all the relevant documents in support of his contentions. 4. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur (C.G.) has after considering the and hearing of the application and perusal of documents passed order on 27.06.2011 with a direction to the 6 concerned Station House OfÏcer that on the application of the applicant register the FIR against the accused persons/respondents No.1 to 6 and investigate the matter and submit final report (charge-sheet) before the concerned Court. Against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur (C.G.) the respondent No. 6 Dhirendra Singh filed Criminal Revision No.151/11 against Brijmohan Dua and one another, respondent No. 2 Manish Pandey filed Criminal Revision No.152/11 against State of Chhattisgarh and another, and vide Criminal Revision No.158/11 Chhatlal Kashyap filed criminal revision against Brijmohan Dua and 6 others before the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.). 5. Learned Sessions Judge, after considering the parties allowed all the three revision petitions in a joint order dated 29.11.2011 as preferred by the aforesaid accused persons and set aside the order of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur (C.G.) being not sustainable in accordance with law. The applicant had earlier challenged the order of learned Sessions Judge (Annexure R-2) before this Court vide Cr.M.P. No.421 of 2012 for setting aside the order dated 29.11.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (Annexure R-2). This Court, in the light of alternative remedy of revision available to the petitioner disposed of the said petition without any observation vide order dated 24.09.2012. Thereafter, applicant preferred criminal revision on 18.10.2012 which registered and numbered as Cr. Rev. No. 693 of 2012. But on 11.09.2014, the said criminal revision has also been withdrawn 7 with liberty to file three constituted separate criminal revisions vide order dated 11.09.2014. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the learned revisional court has also committed a grave error in holding that the learned trial court has committed an error to apply the power as provided in Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to direct the concerned Police to register the FIR and to investigate the matter. It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has also committed a grave error in ignoring the case law as cited by the applicant where this Hon'ble High Court has, in the matter of Bhagwan Das Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others in W.P. (227) No.2166 of 2006 reported in 2011 (1) CGBCLJ 129, observed that "If a person has a grievance that the ofÏcer in-charge of a Police Station has refused to register information relating to commission of cognizable offence i.e. First Information Report under Section 154 (1) of Cr.P.C., then he can send the substance of such information in writing by post to Superintendent of Police of the district under Section 154 (3) of Cr.P.C. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the First Information Report is still not registered, or that even after registration if no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file complaint petition under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate concerned to give direction to the police to register case immediately upon receipt/production of copy of the order and give copy of the First Information Report to the complainant, within twenty four hours of receipt/production of copy of such order (Para-4)" 7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has submitted the aforesaid citation before the learned 8 Sessions Judge but the learned Sessions Judge has totally overlooked the same and not discussed and described the reason for not allowing the same in its impugned order. Learned Sessions Judge has committed serious error and wrong in observing that in application under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. before prosecution of government employee the permission of State Government is essential and necessary. Under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. the permission of State Government is necessary only when the prosecution is submitted before the Magistrate and before that no such permission is needed. Thus, the impugned order being erroneous, illegal and contrary to law, is liable to be set-aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents as well as learned State counsel opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and supports the impugned judgment and order 29.11.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Revision Nos. 152/11, 158/11 and 151/11, arising out of the judgment and order dated 27.06.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in the application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC filed by the applicant, whereby the learned revisional Court has allowed the revisions filed by the private respondents No. 2, 5 and 6 and set aside the order of the learned trial Court, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, further it is also stated that the private respondent No.1 has also filed Second Appeal against 9 the applicant before this Court bearing SA No. 219 of 2013, which is still pending, and the legal representatives of the applicant is also substituted in the said Second Appeal, therefore, the instant revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the judgments/orders of the trial Court as well as the revisional Court, it is clear that after considering all the materials and after applying mind the learned Sessions Judge, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) has passed the impugned order dated 29.11.2011 in Criminal Revision Nos. 152/11, 158/11 and 151/11, arising out of the judgment and order dated 27.06.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in the application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC filed by the applicant, whereby the learned revisional Court has allowed the revisions filed by the private respondents No. 2, 5 and 6 and set aside the order of the learned trial Court, and there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order, further the private respondent No.1 has also filed Second Appeal against the applicant before this Court bearing SA No. 219 of 2013, which is still pending, and the legal representative of the applicant is also substituted in the said Second Appeal. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revisions being devoid of merit are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. 10 12. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar