1 / 3 2025:CGHC:1948-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1159 of 2021 P.R. Nirmal S/o Baldau Nirmal, Aged About 68 Years Retired Deputy Collector, R/o Rajim, Police Station And Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rajnish Sharma S/o Late Alopi Prasad Sharma, R/o B8/6, Mahanda Nagar, Bhartiya Gyanpeeth, School Road, Ujjain, District Ujjain (M.P.) (Complainant), District : Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh ---- Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Mangilal Kajodia, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 13/01/2025 1. The petitioner, who is an accused in the offence of Crime No. 334 of Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN 2 / 3 2021, registered at Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, has filed the instant petition for quashing of the said FIR registered against him for the offence under Sections 420, 34 of IPC with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the first information report bearing Crime No. 334/2021 registered at Police Station, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Annexure P/1) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of Indian Penal Code, so far against the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the respondent No. 2 has made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon alleging that a house was situated at Kalka Para, Dongargarh, over the Plot No. 2124/5, Area 4348 sq.ft., which was recorded in the name of his grandfather Bhaulal Prayag. One Rajeev Mahule had got the said house mutated in his name on the basis of forged document of consent deed and affidavit by taking recourse to the order dated 28.02.2007, passed in Revenue Case No. 25/A-6/2006-07 by the Tahsildar. When the mother of Rajeev Mahule came to know that her son has got mutated the said property in his name alone, she filed an appeal before the SDO, Dongargarh against the order of Tahsildar and then the order passed by Tahsildar dated 28.02.2007 is set aside and ordered for restoration of the earlier mutation and remanded the matter back for fresh hearing of the case after giving opportunity of hearing to all the legal heirs of Bhaulal Prayag. Despite passing of the order by the SDO, Dongargarh, the said property was sold by Rajeev Mahule in the year 2016 and when the entire facts came into knowledge of the complainant, he made the complaint. On the complaint made by the complainant, the preliminary 3 / 3 inquiry was conducted by the SDOP, Dongargarh and thereafter the FIR of Crime No. 334 of 2021 has been registered at Police Station Dongargarh for the offence under Sections 420, 34 of IPC against Rajeev Mahule and P.R. Nirmal (petitioner). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the pendency of the present petition, investigation has been concluded and charge sheet has been submitted. He has filed an application for amendment for amending the prayer clause in the present petition. From perusal of the amendment application, it appears that it is only a formal application for amending the prayer clause of the petition without there being any amendment in the pleadings of the petition for assailing the material, which has been collected during the course of investigation. On the basis of charge sheet, which has been submitted against the petitioner, he has made prayer for quashing of charge sheet, but the same is not on record. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the present petition with liberty to file a duly constituted petition. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as also considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a duly constituted petition. 5. Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the documents/annexures to the learned counsel for the petitioner after retaining the arrested true copy of the same. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved