1 2025:CGHC:1688-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1122 of 2021 1 - Rakesh Kumar Pandey S/o Satnarayan Pandey, Aged About 53 Years R/o Plot No. B/446, Road No. 24 A Smriti Nagar, Supela Police Station - Supela, District - Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through, Police Station - Jamul, District - Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Bhushan Lal Sahu S/o Manrakhan Sahu, Aged About 60 Years Resident Of 2/4 Radhika Nagar, Supela, Police Station - Supela, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Advocate For Respondent/State For Respondent No.2. : : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Mr. Shikhar Agnihotri, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10/01/2025 1. Heard Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent/State. Mr. Shikhar Agnihotri, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. 2 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the F.I.R. as well as charge-sheet against the present petitioner with the following prayer: "It is therefore prayed, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quashed the impugned FIR No. 240/2021 registered at Police Station, Jamul, District- Durg (C.G.), along with final report submitted by the Police Station, Jamul, District- Durg (C.G.) before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, so far it relates to the petitioner for the offence puniishable under Section 420, 506, 120-B & 409 of Indian Penal Code, in the interest of justice. " 3. Brief facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings and documents of the petition are that in the month of June 2021 the complainant Bhushan Lal Sahu (respondent no.2) made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Durg with the allegation that he was having good relation with one Rakesh Kumar Pandey who was his co-workers. In the year 2011 he allured him that he will provide constructed house in the colony developed by Astha Developers which was situated near by Rungta College, Kurud, Bhilai and shown that plot no.1 & 2 is the corner plot and having good location. Under the influence of the co-accused Rakesh Kumar Pandey an agreement was executed on 19.11.2011 with respect to the plot no.1 & 2 for the total consideration and he paid Rs. 12 lakh to him but instead of giving him the plot no. 1 & 2 he has got executed the sale deed registered with respect to the plot no. 14 & 15 behind his back that too the sale deed was registered in the name of his wife. The present petitioner Rakesh Kumar Pandey is the witness to the sale deed. When the fact was came into knowledge of the complainant he raised objection but he gave him assurance that he will return his money and not to lodge any report. Subsequently when no action has been taken by him and evading from repayment of his amount he made written complaint. On the basis of the 3 written complaint preliminary inquiry was conducted and thereafter F.I.R. of the Crime No. 240/2021 for the offence under Section 420, 506, 120-B of I.P.C. was registered at Police Station Jamul District Durg against the petitioner and 3 other accused persons on 26.06.2021. After investigation charge-sheet has been filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg against the petitioner and 2 other accused persons showing the one another co-accused absconding for the offence punishable under Section 420, 506, 120-B of I.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that only to settle his person grudge against the petitioner, the complainant has lodged the report against him. There is no involvement of the petitioner in the offence in question as he is only the witness of the registration of sale deed and he neither the owner of the property nor recipient of the money. Being the friend of the purchaser/complainant, he has put his signature as the witness to the sale deed. The transaction is of the year 2011 the land was mutated in the name of the complainant yet he has not raised any objection at that time and it is only after 10 years of the alleged transaction, he made complaint that the proper land has not been sold to him. He was in knowledge from that time itself regarding the property which was purchased and plot number which has been mentioned in the sale deed. The complainant has not challenged the sale deed in any proceeding. The seller was Astha Developers & Colonizers and the accused persons Manish Rav Solanki, Mooh, Sabir Ali, Ajaj Niyazi, were partners of Astha Developers & Colonizers and the purchaser is Smt. Urmila Sahu. The present petitioner is only the witness to the sale deed and having no personal interest in it. Even if the incorrect property details have been shown in the sale deed or the wrong property has been sold to the complainant, it would be the subject matter of civil dispute and to get the amount back by filing appropriate proceeding before the competent Civil Court. It is only to create the pressure upon the petitioner, he has been made as an accused in the complaint lodged by the complainant. Therefore, the impugned F.I.R. as well as charge-sheet against the petitioner may be quashed. 4 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State as well learned counsel for the private respondent would vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that from the very beginning the present petitioner has allured the complainant to purchase the property in the colony developed by the other accused persons and on his assurance the complainant has purchased the property there and instead of registering the sale deed with respect to the plot no. 1 & 2, they have registered the sale deed for plot no. 14 & 15. They kept him under assurance that they will refund his amount but did not refund it. He would further submits that the involvement of the petitioner in the offence in question is further proved that he is the witness to the sale deed and further submitted that after preliminary inquiry the F.I.R. has been registered and ultimately charge-sheet has been filed. The matter needs evidence which can be decided after recording the evidence of the parties and the charge- sheet is not liable to be quashed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. From the copy of sale deed dated 13.03.2014 annexed with the petition at page no. 31 it appears that the petitioner is the witness to the sale deed except the witness to the sale deed his name is nowhere mentioned either in the agreement dated 19.11.2011 or in the details of the seller and purchaser of the property in the sale deed. There is no allegation against the present petitioner that he is the owner of the property. Further it appears that the agreement was executed in the year 2011, the sale deed was executed in the year 2014 and the names of the purchaser of the land has also been mutated in the year 2015 yet they have not made any complaint till 2021 that a wrong plot has been sold to her. Had the wrong plot been sold to her, she would not have get it mutated in her name and immediately raised objection either before registering authority or before the seller. Further it reflects that it is a dispute with respect to the sale and purchase of the land or identity of the land which is subject matter of the sale deed which purely comes under the civil 5 dispute for which the complainant lodged the report to the police. 8. In the matter of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS) should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. It was held as under: “12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.” (emphasis supplied) 9. Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Randheer Singh vs. State of U.P., reported in (2021) 14 SCC 626, observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it was again held that where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be quashed, by exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C (now Section 528 of the BNSS). 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegation reflects in the charge-sheet against the present petitioner Rakesh Kumar Pandey, this Court is of the opinion that the F.I.R. as well as charge-sheet against the 6 petitioner is liable to be quashed as he is only witness to the sale deed dated 13.03.2014 executed by Astha Developers & Colonizers in favour of Smt. Urmila Sahu, therefore, the present petition is allowed. The F.I.R. of Crime No. 240/2021 registered at Police Station Jamul, District Durg for the offence under Section 420, 506, 120-B, with respect to the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Pandey and charge-sheet filed against him in Criminal Case No. 6123/2024 for the offence under Sections 420, 506, 120-B and 409 of I.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Durg is hereby quashed. It is made clear that the F.I.R. charge-sheet and proceeding of Criminal Case No. 6123/2024 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg is quashed only with respect to the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Pandey. 11. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.01.23 19:03:18 +0530