1 2025:CGHC:768 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2282 of 2018 Gorelal Patel S/o Late Rudra Prasad Patel Aged About 72 Years R/o- Village Pansara, Police Station- Basantpur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Smt. Shyamla Devi Widow of Late Chandra Shekhar Prasad Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Pansara, Police Station- Basantpur, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ranchhor Rai S/o Late Chandra Shekhar Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Pansara, Police Station- Basantpur, District – Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ranjeet S/o Late Chandra Shekhar Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Pansara, Police Station- Basantpur, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sunil Tripathi, learned counsel for the private respondents. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC for being aggrieved by the order dated 03.08.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. R-16/17 by learned 2nd Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District – Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.), arising out of the order dated 25.03.2017 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 01/2015 by learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Wadrafnagar, District – Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.), whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned revisional Court. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that the petitioner had preferred an application under Section 145 of the CrPC before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj. The application was based on the ground that the disputed land of Kh. No. 394./2, rakba 0.049 Hactares was obtained by the petitioner in family settlement since then he is possessing the same. After getting the land in family settlement had raised construction of house and toilet through own expenses and same was given on rent to Assistant Settlement Office and after abolition of Assistant Settlement Office, it was given on rent to Saraswati Shishu Mandir and at present after constructing Godown the petitioner is possessing over the land. On 23.02.2015, the Respondents had tried to grab the land from the petitioner unauthorizedly/forcefully thereby they caused the breach of peace, therefore, the petitioner moved an application 3 under Section 145 of the CrPC before the learned Magistrate. The respondents had filed their reply to the application and denied the contentions of the application. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 25.03.2017, had rejected the application under Section 145 of t5he CrPC filed by the petitioner, holding that there is no possibility to cause the breach of peace. Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.03.2017, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision before the learned revisional Court which was also rejected vide order dated 03.08.2018. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Court has failed to see that the petitioner is possessing over the land since after getting under family settlement and the respondents have tried dispossess him and creating third party interest over it, hence there is every possibility to cause breach of peace, but the same was ignored by the trial Court. It is further submitted that the demarcation report and Panchname, the petitioner is possessing over the land. The learned trail Court has also failed to see that the petitioner had given the disputed house on rent to Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Wadrafnagar. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned judgment and order dated 03.08.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. R-16/17 by learned 4 2nd Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), arising out of the order dated 25.03.2017 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 01/2015 by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Wadrafnagar, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned revisional Court, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. 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 transpires that no good ground has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner in the present case showing the importance of the present petition for quashment of the impugned order, thus, it is clear that after considering all the materials and after applying mind the learned revisional Court has passed the impugned order dated 03.08.2018 in Criminal Revision No. R-16/17, arising out of the order dated 25.03.2017 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 01/2015 by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Wadrafnagar, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), by which the revision 5 preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed, and there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, the instant petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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